D M GAYATRI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC BELLARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and Award dated 5-6-1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') on his file in M. V. C. No. 179/89, the present appeal has been filed by the widow and two minor children of deceased-D. Mahadev seeking modification of the award by increasing the compensation. By the judgment under appeal Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- as compensation for the death of Mahadev.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the deceased -D. Mahadev was the employee working as an Accountant in the State Bank of Mysore at Hospet Branch. He was aged about 35 years and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,275/- per month. On 27-5-1989 deceased-Mahadev and PW-2 J. Laxminarayana had gone to Hubli in connection with their official work on a motor-cycle bearing Registration No. CNY 4751. After attending the work at Hubli, they started their journey back for Hospet. Deceased-Mahadev was driving the motor-cycle and J. Laxminarayana was travelling as a pillion rider. At about 4 p. m. while they were passing on Koppal-Hospet Main Road they saw the Bus coming from the opposite direction. Deceased took the motor-cycle towards left side of the road and at that time another bus which was coming from the Koppal side behind them bearing Registration No. MEF 8370 came and dashed the motor-cycle. It is alleged that the said bus was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which it dashed against the motor-cycle. As a result of the dashing of the bus with the motor-cycle PW-2 was thrown away and the motor-cycle and the deceased were stuck under the bus. The vehicle as well as the deceased were dragged upto a distance of about 70 feet resulting in multiple injuries causing the spot death. P. W. 2 -J. Laxminarayana sustained minor injuries. Another employee of Grameen Bank who was also travelling on the same road, seeing the accident and having seen P. W. 2 sustaining injuries, took him to Koppal Hospital where at his instance a complaint was lodged. Appellant in their claim petition averred that as a result of the death of the deceased the appellants lost love and affection of the deceased. They lost their dependency as well. It was alleged that the deceased would have survived upto 70 years of age. For the loss of dependency, mental shock and suffering undergone as well as the funeral expenses the claim for Rs. 20 lakhs and odd was put up.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed his written statement denying the allegations of the appellants made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that the Bus No. MEF 8370 was going at a normal speed on its left side. At that time, the deceased was driving the motor-cycle Yamaha came from behind in high speed trying to overtake the bus. At that point of time and at that juncture another vehicle came from the opposite direction seeing which the deceased immediately tried to take his motor cycle towards left side of the road and in that attempt the vehicle skidded and fell in front of the bus bearing No. MEF 8370. The pillion rider of the motor cycle escaped but the deceased sustained fatal injuries. It was claimed that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle as the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged accident. The age and income as alleged by the appellants was denied. It was contended that the claim for compensation is highly exorbitant, unreasonable.