Establishment of liability requires assessing contributory negligence; the deceased's intoxication contributed to the accident, affecting compensation.

JUDGMENT

M.F.A. No.2461/2023 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and M.F.A. No.6526/2023 is filed by the KSRTC challenging negligence and the liability of compensation granted by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, in M.V.C. No.1722/2019, dated 08.02.2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The appellants in M.F.A. No. 2461/2023 are the petitioners, the appellant in M.F.A. No. 6526/2023 is the respondent-KSRTC in MVC No.1526/2014. The rank of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake convenience.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , seeking compensation for the death of one Devaraju, the husband of the first petitioner. It was stated in the petition that on 06.08.2019 at about 3.15 p.m., while the deceased Devaraju after alighting his pillion rider opposite to Sanjeevani hospital, Salagame road, Hassan, was sitting on the bike, which was in starting condition, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased's bike. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. The police registered FIR and filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Hence, the petitioners-claimants filed the claim petition seeking the compensation of Rs.30 lakhs.

5. In response to the notice, the respondent-KSRTC appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objection denying the rash and negligent driving of the bus and also denied the accident, age and income of the deceased, and contended that the accident was occurred because of the negligence of the deceased Devaraju and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Based upon the same, the Tribunal framed the following two issues:

7. On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and examined one T. Krishnaraju as P.W.2, and got marked 11 documents as per the exhibits P.1 to P.11. On the other hand, the KSRTC bus driver was examined as R.W.1 and got marked two documents as exhibits R.1 and 2.

8. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded the compensation of Rs.17,98,450/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and the KSRTC has also filed the appeal challenging the liability and seeking reduction in the quantum of compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month as notional income. Even for the accidents of the year 2019, Rs.14,000/- is considered in Lok Adalaths. It is further contended that 40% towards future prospects is required to be granted. Accordingly, prayed for allowing the appeal.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- KSRTC has seriously contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The deceased was fully in drunken stage and he came on the middle of the road and died. The driver of the KSRTC himself gave complaint against the deceased as per Exhibit R2. The learned counsel further contended that the PM report clearly reveals that there was consumption of Ethyl alcohol (67.43 mg / 100ml of blood) by the deceased, and the decea