Determination of liability and quantum of compensation based on evidentiary standards and statutory guidelines in the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

NWKRTC, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed in MVC No.13/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for short), filed MFA No.21710/2012 challenging the quantum and liability. The claimants have filed MFA Cross objection No.100024/2022, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeals and this cross objection, are as follows:

On 08.12.2009, Suresh met with an accident as he was riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/J-2344, along with his friend headed towards Savadatti, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F-274 came from the opposite direction with great speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle. As a result, Suresh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that the deceased was hale and healthy and he owns 8 acres of land and earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the sudden death of suresh, the claimants are suffering from deep mental shock and have lost a bread earner of the family. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Hence, the claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Suresh, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

3. The respondents-NWKRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased Suresh i.e., the rider of the motorcycle. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues.

5. During the pendency of the claim petition, Smt. Paravva i.e., claimant No.2 died, leaving behind claimant No.1.

6. The claimant, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. In rebuttal, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and no documents were produced and marked.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and held that petitioner No.1 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,44,995/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed the NWKRTC to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest.

8. The NWKRTC, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed MFA No.21710/2012 and the claimant filed MFA Cross Objection No.100024/2022 seeking for an enhancement of the compensation amount.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the NWKRTC and the learned counsel for the claimant.

10. Learned counsel for NWKRTC submits that the accident occurred in 2009. The claimant has not produced any income proof of the deceased. In the absence of the income proof, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,10,000/- per annum which is on the higher side. He submits that, in the absence of any income proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. He submits that as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, for the accident of the year 2009, the notional income should be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. He also submits that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on