M.F.A. No.862 of 2016 is filed at the instance of the

claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation and

M.F.A. No.9426 of 2015 is filed at the instance of the

K.S.R.T.C questioning the findings regarding negligence in

judgment and award dated 4-8-2015 in M.V.C. No.593 of

2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, C.J.M., and

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Chitradurga.

2. Claim petition proceeded on the allegation that, one

Sukeshkumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was

riding motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-42 H-9566 on

22-5-2014 at about 7:20 p.m. on B.M. Road at Gandhi Circle

in Ramanagara and at that time, a K.S.R.T.C. Volvo bus

bearing Registration No.KA-41 F-8451, which was proceeding

from Mysuru towards Bengaluru side, came in a rash and

negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the motorcycle

resulting in death of the deceased at the spot.

5

3. Before the Tribunal, K.S.R.T.C entered appearance

and filed written statement denying the material allegations

made in the claim petition.

4. During trial, mother of the deceased was examined

as P.W.1, one eyewitness was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1

to P.15 were marked. The respondents examined the Driver

of the bus as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked.

5. The Tribunal, upon hearing the learned counsel on

both sides and considering the material on record, allowed

the claim petition in part and awarded total compensation of

Rs.5.00 lakh with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum and

took

into

consideration

Rs.50,000/-

as

ex-gratia

compensation, which is already disbursed by the K.S.R.T.C.

6. Learned counsel appearing for K.S.R.T.C. vehemently

contended that the Tribunal committed an error in recording

the finding that the Driver of the K.S.R.T.C. Volvo bus was

negligent in causing the accident. She took me through the

evidence of P.W.2, R.W.1, Ex.P.1-compaint, Ex.R.4-spot

6

sketch, Ex.P.15-charge-sheet and Ex.P.4-I.M.V. report and

submitted that cumulative effect of the entire evidence placed

both documentary and oral points only in one direction

namely, that it was negligence of the deceased, who was a

minor that was the only cause for accident. Therefore, she

prayed for allowing the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants, per contra,

contended that the Tribunal was right and justified in

recording the finding that whole cause for the accident was

rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the K.S.R.T.C.

Volvo bus, i.e. R.W.1. He drew my attention to the deposition

of P.W.2, who was an eyewitness to the incident and he also

submitted that K.S.R.T.C. ought to have examined at least

one of the passengers of the K.S.R.T.C Volvo bus. He also

relied upon the observation in Column-17 of Ex.P.15-charge-

sheet wherein, it is stated that the accident was caused on

account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus

driven by R.W.1. He, therefore, submitted that the findings

of the Tribunal on the aspect of the negligence is

7

unexceptionable and therefore, it is liable to be upheld. He

also submitted that the Tribunal was very conservative in

assessing the liability of K.S.R.T.C. to pay compensation

especially keeping in view the fact that the deceased was a

young boy, aged about 17 years and he was the only child to

his parents and in order to demonstrate that he was excellent

in studies, various Certificates were also produced as per

Exs.P.8 to P.14. He, therefore, submitted that the appellants

have a strong case for enhancement of compensation and

therefore, the appeal is entitled to be allowed.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made on both sides and I have carefully perused

the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased

was a minor, aged about 17 years and while riding the

motorcycle

bearing

Registration

No.KA-42

H-9566

on

22-5-2014 at about 7.20 p.m., he met with an accident and

he died at the spot itself. What is in dispute between the rival