In motor vehicle accident cases, if evidence confirms the vehicle's involvement and no proof exists of the victim's negligence, contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the victim, and compensation must be calculated following established judicial precedents regarding future prospects and multipliers.

THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.09.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T., J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

and

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

These appeals arise out of the award in MVC No.500/2016 passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, II Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.

MFA No.3951/2019 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation and MFA No.6560/2017 is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') owner of the offending vehicle seeking dismissal of MVC No.500/2016.

The appellants in MFA No.3951/2019 were claimants No.1 to 5, respondent in the said appeal was respondent in MVC No.500/2016. The appellant in MFA No.6560/2017 was respondent and respondents in this appeal were claimants before the tribunal.

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

2. Claimant No.1 is wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are children and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are parents of deceased Venkatesh. On 15.12.2015, in between 10.00 a.m. and 10.30 a.m., when Venkatesh was proceeding as pedestrian on the left side of NH-75, Tavarekere village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, APSTRC bus bearing No.AP-03-Z-5156 hit him and caused his instantaneous death. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted at Hoskote Government Hospital.

3. Sri.Perumalappa, the father of deceased Venkatesh filed complaint to Nandagudi police vide Ex.P2. On the basis of the complaint, the Nandagudi police registered FIR as per Ex.P1 in Crime No.292/2015 against the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 03 Z 5156, for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. On investigation, the police charge sheeted the driver of APSRTC bus No.AP 03 Z 5156 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. At the relevant time, respondent was the registered owner of the bus.

4. The claimants filed MVC No.500/2016 under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming that the accident and consequential death of Venkatesh occurred due to actionable negligence of the driver of the bus. They further claimed that, they were residing with deceased Venkatesh and dependent on him. Thus, they claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. They claimed that respondent being the owner of offending vehicle was liable to pay the compensation.

5. The respondent, the owner of APSRTC bus contested the matter and denied the occurrence of the accident as alleged, the involvement of the bus in the accident, age, occupation, income of the deceased and dependency of the claimants on the deceased. Respondent denied its liability to pay the compensation.

6. The Tribunal relying on the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, Ex.P.1 to P14 and evidence of RW.1 held that, claimants were dependant on the deceased. The Tribunal notionally considered the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and added 50% to the same by way of future prospectus and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal applied '16' multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.19,44,000/- under the head of 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal in all assessed compensation of Rs.20,79,000/- on different heads as per the table below: