Court found contributory negligence with 90% liability on the Corporation and 10% on the deceased, modifying compensation to Rs.44,06,000 due to errors in calculating liability and conventional heads.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. As these appeals are arising out of common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.7017/2019 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, SCCH-20, Mayohall, Bengaluru dated 26.03.2021.

3. MFA.No.1354/2022 is filed by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short 'BMTC'), challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability and interest. Whereas the MFA.No.7160/2021 is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award, seeking for enhancement of compensation passed by the Tribunal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

5. Brief facts of the case are that, on 17.09.2019 at around 8.20 am, Sri R.Nagarjun (hereinafter referred as the deceased) was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 03-HW-7666 on Varthur main road, HAL, Bangalore, while BMTC bus No.KA-42-F-1728, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained several grievous injuries and he died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a Construction Supervisor. Hence, claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 for seeking compensation.

6. Smt. Sohani A Holla, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation vehemently contended that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the rider of the motorcycle was solely responsible for the accident as he had moved in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and the rider was not wearing helmet and tried to overtake the slow moving bus from the right side between the footpath and slow moving bus, at that time, left side handle of the motorcycle came in contact with the right side hind portion of the bus, due to which he lost his balance and fell on the hard surface of the road and sustained injuries. However, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration all these aspects and saddled the entire responsibility on the Corporation.

7. Learned counsel further contended that the entire negligence was on the side of the rider of the motorcycle. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of dependency', 'future prospects', 'loss of consortium' and interest, are all on higher side.

8. Further, the Tribunal has awarded 50% towards 'future prospects' which is also on higher side. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. which is also exorbitant. Thus, she prays to allow the appeal.

9. Sri Gurudeva Prasad K.T, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal has awarded fair and reasonable compensation on all heads except on the head 'loss of consortium'. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- only. As there are three claimants-dependants, they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each which comes to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards 'loss of consortium'. Thus, he prays to allow his appeal.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with original records of the Tribunal, the points that would arise for our consideration in the appeal are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly justified in saddling the entire liability on the Corporation?

(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?

11. To prove the claim of the appellant, one J Asharani was ex