B.P. HUGAR AND BASAVALINGAMMA Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, ANAND A. AND UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REPT. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by the claimants and the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation for short) are directed against the judgment and award dated 23.2.2012 passed in MVC No. 393/2009 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Tumkur. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/ -, on account of the death of their daughter Smt. Asha Hugar, in the road traffic accident.

(2.) THE claimants have filed MFA No. 3974/2012 contending that the quantum of compensation is inadequate and requires enhancement, whereas the Corporation has filed MFA No. 10309/2012 challenging the liability and also for fixing reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Volvo bus.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the claimants, at the outset submitted that, the Tribunal has committed grave error in conducting the proceedings. There is no application of mind on the part of the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award. Without taking the relevant factors into consideration and the documents produced by the claimants that the deceased was aged about 23 years and was working as Software Engineer at HCL Technologies Ltd., Chennai drawing salary of Rs. 20,833/ - per month, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the basic pay of Rs. 6,050/ - and Dearness Allowance at Rs. 6,699/ - and arrived at Rs. 12,749/ - as net income of the deceased. Further, relying on the judgment reported in : 2012 AIR SCW 2892 in the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., as held in paragraph 18, he submitted that, while calculating the income of the deceased, the future prospects at 30% ought to have been added to the income as the deceased was working in a private company. He further submitted that regarding contributory negligence, fastening 100% liability on the Corporation has been confirmed by this Court in MFA No. 9512/2011 c/w. MFA Nos. 9513/2011 to 9517/2011 disposed of on 29.11.2013 arising out of the same accident. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in fastening 100% negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. Therefore, interference is not called for. He submitted that reasonable compensation may be awarded by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.