Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C, ... vs Sri P C Ponnappa S/O Sri Charamanna on 20 July, 2011
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI 0-5 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8525/20i0 | BETWEEN: The Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore OR The Divisional Controller Bannimantap K.S.R.T.C Mysore Representing by its =. Chief Law Officers. ~ K.S.R.T.C. me ne Bangalore -270). 0 .. APPELLANT (By Sri.K.S.Bharath. Kumar, Ady.) AND: dl. Sri. P.C.Porinappa -- oo. S/o, Sri-Charamanna .. Aged about 52 years = 2. Smt.P:P.loxnii - W/o P.C.Ponnappa 'Aged about 43 years Both are residing at D.No. 1064 _ Chamarajapuram ..Fayalakshmivilasa Road Mysore. 3. Vinitha D/o P.C.Ponnappa Aged about 24 years R/at D.No.1064 Chamarajapuram Jayalakshmivilasa Road Mysore. 4, SanjayKumar @ Sanju S/o Nanda Kumar, Aged about 30 years, Driver of. K.S.R.T.C. Bus No. KA-09 F-3062°. Mysore Rural Depot ek, a a : Mysore. = | RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Somanna B. A for Somanna. Assis. 'Advs. for R-1to R3) . This M.F.A. is 'Tiled under Section 1730 ) of MV Act against the judgment and" award dated" 1.6: 2010 passed in MVC No.668/2009 on the file of The Fiie of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-lI, » Additional. MACT,. "Mysore, awarding a compensation of Rs.7.54, 000 v/- with interest @ @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition til. deposit. _ This. Appeal. coming. on. for - orders this day, the Court delivered the following: ; JUDGMENT
There is a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. Cause shown | is ace opted. "Delay condoned.
2. This appeal is by the KSRTC, questioning the negligence . and quantum of compensation in respect of judgment and award "in M.V.C.No.668/2009 dated 1.6.2010 on the file of M.A.C.T., ~. Mysore.
3 The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,54,000/- with interest.
4. Claimants are parents and unmarried sister of: the deceased. Deceased was working as a driving instructor. in & driving school by name "Shashank Driving School". ~To prove - the same, the claimants have examined Pw -3 and. ave also produced Ex.P8 -- salary certificate. "The tribunal has taken the» income of the deceased at Rs.7.000/ - and taking the age of the deceased and giving deduction "of - 50% has awarded compensation of F Rs.7 Ty 14, 000/ 7 towards loss | of dependency.
5. Learn=d ( Counsel tor whe KERTC submitted that, there is no proof of income of | thle deceased. Claimants are parents and sister of the deceased. "The » rauitiplier applicable is the younger parent's age aid not the deceased.
oe 6. Oa the. other hand, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that, 'the deceased was working as an instructor in driving school and earning salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. To
--\prave the same, the driving licence ~ Ex.P7 has been produced.
7. From the facts, it is clear that the deceased was a . driver, whether he was instructor in driving school or not, fact that he was driver cannot be disputed. Further, claimant No.3 is unmarried sister and there is no evidence to show that there is any other person to take care of the family. It is in these circumstances, I find that, instead of 50% deduction, "18 3 deduction could be given and income could be. taken at 7 Rs.6,000/- per month and age of the younger parents could be taken, as they are the dependants and, not the: deceased is"
dependant. Considering the same,. | claimants are entitled for Rs.6,72,000/- as against R:7.14,000/-. "ence, conipensation is reduced by Rs.42,000/ me in oll claimiants 'are entitled for Rs.7,12,000/- with interest.
8. As far "as. negligence 'is "concerned, though the contentior: is raise that the-deceased was negligent, to prove the same, driver of the bus has been examined. However, PW-2 is an eye-witness to the -ccident and it is also not in dispute that, immediately after the accident, Police has registered a case against the driver of the bus and on investigation, charge sheet is also-filec: "The Police records coupled with the evidence of PW- 2 "proves that the driver of the bus was negligent. In these ° circum mstances, there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal "ingofar as negligence is concerned.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
KNM/-