MANAGING DIRECTOR TNSTC LTD Vs. K I BINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court affirming the Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara (in short the Tribunal), disposing of an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act).

(3.) Background facts according to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as Claimants) are as follows : On 5th July, 2002 at about 7.30 P.M. one Satheesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) lost his life in an automobile accident. The deceased was riding a Hero Honda Motor Cycle. The bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) dashed against the deceased as a result of which he sustained serious injuries on the left side of his body, thereafter, he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thirueanantpuram where he expired. A claim petition was filed by the respondents who are the widow, children and the mother of the deceased before the Tribunal. A claim of Rs. 25 lakhs as compensation was made. Considering the evidence on record the Tribunal came to hold that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 8,34,784 as compensation. Age of the deceased was taken to be 34 years. With reference to the salary certificate the gross monthly income was taken to be Rs. 5,843 and making deduction of 1/3rd of the said amount towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family was worked out at Rs. 3,896 and annual dependency was arrived at Rs. 46,752. Multiplier of 17 was applied and accordingly the amount was calculated at Rs. 7,94,784. In addition to that a sum of Rs. 40,000 for pain and sufferings, loss of love and affection, transportation, post mortem and funeral expenditure was awarded. The award was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court on several grounds. Primary stand was regarding alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was, therefore, urged that the amount awarded cannot be maintained. It was also submitted that there was no loss of dependency as the respondent No.1 had got clerical job on compassionate ground in place of the deceased who was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Civil Supplies Corporation. The multiplier was also stated to be on the higher side. The High Court did not accept the plea regarding contributory negligence though reliance was placed on the evidence of a passenger in the bus (PW2), who was also examined. On consideration of the claimants case relating to the accident, High Court felt that there was no scope for any interference.