DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, MANDYA, REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE Vs. CHIKKATHAYAMMA, W/O. HONNEGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE KSRTC has filed this appeal challenging the award granting compensation to the respondents in a claim made under Section );">166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is on 14.07.2009 that H. Nagendra [deceased] was driving the canter bearing reg. No.KA 12/676? and when he was proceeding on the left side of the road, a KSRTC bus bearing reg. No.KA 40 -F -045 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit the canter. As a result, H.Nagendra sustained grievous injuries and while he was being shifted to the Bangalore Hospital for higher treatment, succumbed to the said injuries. The respondents herein being the legal representatives made a claim for compensation on different grounds. The claimants i.e., the respondents herein examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to 7, whereas the respondent i.e., the appellant herein examined R.W. 1. The Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 -00 p.m., adopting the multiplier 18 and deducting 1/3 has awarded compensation of Rs. 8,74,000 -00 with interest at 6% p. a. Aggrieved by the award, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) THE Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 -00 p.m. The deceased was bachelor and the claimants are his parents and unmarried sister. The accident is of the year 2009. So, taking into consideration the deceased was working as a driver, I am of the opinion that the assessment of the income by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000 -00 p.m. is on lower side and it has to be enhanced to Rs. 4,500 -00 p. m. As the deceased was bachelor and the claimants are his parents and unmarried sister, the deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased has to be taken at one half. The monthly contribution will be Rs. 2,250 -00. Furthermore, considering the age of the mother, who was 38 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier of 15 has to be adopted. Therefore, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal has to be corrected. The Tribunal has made an arithmetical mistake in multiplying the annual income and instead of taking 12 months, it has considered 24 months. So, if these mistakes are rectified, the claimants are entitled to the compensation enumerated under: Rs. 2,250 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 4,05.000 -00 5. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000 -00 towards conventional heads. Thus, they are entitled to Rs. 4,35,000 -00 with interest at 6% p.a. In the circumstances, I answer point No.1 in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part, modifying the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. The compensation amount is reduced to Rs. 4,35,000 -00 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment. The amount of Rs. 50,000 -00 each shall be deposited in the name of claimants 1 and 2 i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein for a period of 5 years in any nationalized bank. Out of the compensation awarded, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 -00 shall be paid to the 3rd respondent herein and respondents 1 and 2 herein are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount. The amount of Rs. 25,000 -00 deposited before this Court shall be transferred to the Tribunal concerned for disbursement. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.II/2011 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and hence it is rejected.