This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9,

3

for short) has been filed by the corporation being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadravathi in

MVC No.889/2018.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 14.08.2018, when the

deceased-Manjunatha was going from Bhadravathi

towards Sidlipura along with his friend Vadivelu on

TVS bike bearing registration No.KA-18-X-8992 and

when they reached near NH-206, B.H.Road, Karehalli,

at that time, driver of the bus bearing registration

No.KA-11-F-0423 which was being driven in a rash

and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of

the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident,

the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head

and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

4

3.

The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased along with interest.

4.

On service of summons, the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed

separate objection statement in which the averments

made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by

respondent No.1 that the deceased was not holding

valid driving licence and was not wearing helmet and

deceased was hearing song from headphone. It was

further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash

and negligent act of the deceased himself. The age,

occupation and income of the deceased are denied.

Hence, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any

compensation to the petitioners.

5

It was pleaded by respondent No.2-corporation

that the quantum of compensation claimed by the

claimants is exorbitant, unreasonable, arbitrary and

disproportionate.

It

was

further

pleaded

that

deceased was rash and negligent in riding the bike

without following the traffic rules and took his bike

suddenly from left side towards right side by over

taking lorry which was in front of the bike with over

speed and in an intoxicated condition without any

head gear. It is further contended that deceased was

minor at the alleged time of accident and vehicle of

the deceased had no insurance policy. Though there

was no negligence of the respondent No.1, out of

sympathy this respondent has paid Rs.10,000/- as

interim compensation to the legal heirs of the

deceased. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

6

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case, examined claimant No.1-Balu M., as

PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9. On behalf of respondents, one witness was

examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents

namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The Claims Tribunal, by the

impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident

took place on account of rash and negligent driving of

the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of

which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed

to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the

claimants

are

entitled

to

a

compensation

of

Rs.7,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7%

p.a. and directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the

7

compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. Sri.Nagaraja K., learned counsel appearing

for corporation has contended that the accident has

occurred due to the negligence of deceased himself.

At the time of accident he was a minor. He was not

wearing helmet and he was negligent in causing the

accident. The Tribunal erred in holding that the driver

of the bus is negligent in causing the accident. He

further contended, considering the age and avocation

of the deceased the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal towards `loss of dependency' and other

incidental expenses is on the higher side. Lastly he

has contended that in view of the Judgment of this

court in the case of Joyeeta Bose and other