M. MUNIRATHNAMMA Vs. MANAGER KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the claimants is that on 11.12.2010 at 10.00 p.m. the deceased Ranganatha and his friends were travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing No. KA 04 -4219 towards Kunigal near Bilidevalaya on NH 48, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA -18 -F -253 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tata Sumo as a result of the impact the deceased fell down and died. The LRs of the deceased namely, his wife and minor children filed the claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor vehicles Act. The tribunal held that the driver of the KSRTC as negligent in causing the accident and awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,70,000/ - along with 6% interest. Seeking enhancement the claimants have filed MFA No. 2732/2012. Questioning the liability to satisfy the award as well as the excessive grant of compensation the KSRTC has filed MFA No. 4791/2012.

(2.) HEARD counsels and examined the records.

(3.) SO far as enhancement is concerned, the claimant relies on Exs. P -9 and P -10 which are the pay slip and the letter issued by the Chaitanya Package Industry wherein the gross salary of the deceased was shown as Rs. 13,017/ - as on 9 -4 -2010, Rs. 15,207/ - as on 10 -12 -2010 and Rs. 7,365/ - for 15 days as on 18 -12 -2010. An application has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 seeking production of Form No. 16 issued by the employer of the deceased in terms whereof the gross income of the deceased is shown as Rs. 1,75,000/ - per annum. Hence, it is contended that the application be allowed and the compensation be granted on the basis of the additional document. However, the learned counsel appearing for KSRTC contends that the said document is not authenticated and that the claimants would have to establish the document. Since the claim in terms of Form No. 16 has not been established the question of entertaining the application herein and granting compensation on that basis would be improper.