The court emphasized the importance of evidential support for assessing negligence and income for compensation in accident cases, adjusting the awarded amount based on correct future prospects application.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

MFA No.104700 of 2024 filed by the Corporation and MFA CROB No.100039 of 2025 filed by the cross objectors/claimants. Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 25.06.2024 passed in MVC No.520/2022 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Jamkhandi, [‘Tribunal’ for short]

2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that on 19.06.2022 one Mahaning was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/S-3078. At that time, the driver of the appellant-Corporation bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F- 3367 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle resulted in accident and Mahaning sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The wife, children and parents filed a claim petition.

3. The appellant - Corporation filed detailed objection denying his age, income, avocation and aspect of negligence and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. The Tribunal recorded the evidence. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9. The respondent examined RW1, the driver of the bus and got marked Exhibits R1 and R2. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding that the driver of the appellant Corporation bus was negligent and caused the accident in question and awarded total compensation of Rs.28,36,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved, the Corporation is in appeal challenging the aspect of negligence and the quantum of compensation and claimants are in cross objection seeking higher compensation.

4. Sri S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation submits that the Tribunal committed grave error in recording the finding that the driver of the bus has caused the accident and was negligent. It is submitted that the deceased was the rider of the motorcycle and there were two pillion riders. Hence, he lost control over the motorcycle and caused the accident and this aspect has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. He further submits that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of driving the motorcycle, which is the cause for the accident and none of the aspects have been appreciated by the Tribunal and incorrectly recorded the finding that the driver of the bus has caused the accident and saddled the entire liability on the Corporation. Hence, he seeks to shift the liability to certain extent on the deceased as he also contributed to the accident in question. He further submitted that the deceased was aged about 42 years. Hence, appropriate addition under the head of loss of future prospects would be 25%. However, the Tribunal incorrectly considered 40% as loss of future prospects. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by dismissing the cross objection filed by the claimants.

5. Sri Siddappa S.Sajjan, learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal insofar as aspect of negligence is concerned. It is submitted that the deceased was working as a Manager in Renuka Lodge and drawing Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal, without appreciating the documentary evidence placed by the claimants at Exhibits P7 to P9, had incorrectly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.14,750/- per month. He seeks to enhance the same at Rs.20,000/- per month by allowing the cross objection.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, learned counsel for the cross objectors-claimants and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to th