The court ruled that the apportionment of negligence was improperly attributed to the deceased, and revised the compensation amount justly reflecting economic dependents.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the award in MVC No.3273/2013 passed by MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (SCCH:15), claimants have preferred MFA No.5154/2014; respondent No.1 (in the claim petition) i.e. Manager, National Insurance Company Limited has preferred MFA No.4013/2014, respondent No.3 (in the claim petition) i.e. Managing Director, KSRTC, has preferred MFA No.4165/2014.

3. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 1 were the driver and insurer respectively of Car bearing No.KL-10/AJ-2986; respondent No.3 is owner of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-07/F-1582. On 28.05.2013, at 11.00 p.m., when Manjunath was crossing the road near Billakempanahalli Gate on Bengaluru-Mysuru road, the accident took place involving KSRTC bus bearing No.KA- 07/F-1582 and car bearing No.KL-10/AJ-2986. In the accident, Manjunath got injuries. He was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Hospital, Bengaluru, where he succumbed to injuries on the same day.

5. On the basis of complaint by one Lokesh, FIR in Crime No.211/2013 in Bidadi Police Station as per Ex.P.1 was registered against the drivers of bus and car. On investigation, charge sheet as per Ex.P.8 was filed against both of them for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC read with 187 of IMV Act. The wife, children, parents and younger sister of deceased Manjunath filed MVC No.3273/2013 before the MACT, Bengaluru, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from respondents on the ground that they were all depending on the income of deceased Manjunath and due to his accidental death, they suffered damages.

6. The respondents contested the matter denying rashness and negligence on the part of drivers of car and bus, age, occupation, income of deceased and their liability to pay compensation. They contended that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself as he was trying to cross the road without taking due precaution. Respondent No.3 contended that the driver of car was rash and negligent, whereas respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of bus in question.

7. The Tribunal, on hearing parties, by the impugned award held that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the drivers of bus, car and deceased himself. The Tribunal apportioned negligence at 60% to bus driver; 30% to car driver and 10% to the deceased. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and added 50% to the same as ‘future prospects’, deducted 1/4th from it for his ‘personal expenses’, considered his age as 30 years, applied 18 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.18,48,000/- on different heads as per the table below;

8. The claimants challenge the said award on the ground that imputing 10% negligence to deceased is erroneous. It is also contended that compensation awarded is on the lower side. Whereas, KSRTC challenges the award on the ground that as per the evidence on record, rashness and negligence was on the part of driver of car and deceased himself and compensation awarded is high. Similarly, Insurance Company challenges the award on the ground that impu