INDIRA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K H ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 1st December 2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi, in MVC No.102 of 2013.

(2.) Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2012 at about 9.30 pm the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-31-K-244 from Sirsi to Hubli. When they were going on Mundgod-Tadas road, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19-F-2843 came from opposite direction with a great speed and dashed to the motor cycle on which the petitioner was proceeding. As a result of the same, Narasimha Subraya Hegde sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. For having lost the bread earner, a claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation. In pursuance of the notice, respondent No.2 appeared and filed objections. By denying the contents of the petition, it is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. But the rider of the motor cycle was rash and negligent and he lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the stationed bus. As a result of the same, the alleged accident has taken place. He further contended that the rider of the motorcycle and the insurer were not made as parties to the proceedings and as such, they are necessary parties. On that account also, the petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that an amount of Rs.50,000/- had been paid on humanitarian grounds by the respondent-Corporation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Therefore, the said sum is liable to be deducted while awarding compensation. On these grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed exparte.