ORAL JUDGMENT

1. MFA No.5099/2020 is filed by the Corporation and MFA No.6713/2022 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2019 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC No.692/2017.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 08.03.2017 at about 5.15 p.m., the son of the claimant by name Divakara was trying to crossing the Mysore-Bengaluru road in between Sundahalli- Siddaiahnakoppalur Village, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-09-F-4906 drove the same at high speed so as to endangerous to human life and dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following counter-contentions:

a) Firstly, the accident occurred on the Bengaluru-Mysuru Highway. The deceased was crossing the highway where there was no zebra crossing. Since the decease suddenly entered the main road, the bus driver was unable to control the vehicle and collided with the deceased. The accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself. The driver of the bus was examined, and he stated categorically that the deceased suddenly entered the main road and dashed the moving bus. Therefore, the deceased himself was negligent and responsible for causing the accident. However, the Tribunal, without considering the evidence of PW-1, erred in holding that the bus driver was negligent and caused the accident.

b) Secondly, although the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, they have failed to substantiate their claim with supporting documents. However, the assessment of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

d) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS –V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants by allowing the appeal filed by the Corporation. 7. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

a) Firstly, the deceased was standing near the footbath divider to cross the road. The driver of the Bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to impact, he fell down and suffered injury and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, FIR, Charge Sheet, IMV report has rightly held that the driver of the Bus was negligent in causing the accident.

b) Secondly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and had a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- by doing agric