Bangalore
Metropolitan Transport Corp. Vs. Padma & Ors. [2009] INSC 408 (25 February
2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 1251 OF 2009 (Arising
out of SLP (C) NO. 15127 of 2008) Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ...Appellant
Corpn.
Versus Padma &
Ors. ...Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division bench of the Karnataka High
Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (in short the `Act'). The Award made by the
Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (in short the `MACT') was questioned in the appeal.
MACT by its Award dated 16.2.2002 had awarded a sum of Rs.11,04,032/- as
compensation.
3.
Background
facts giving rise to the appeal as projected by the claimants for compensation
are as follows:
On 14.12.1998 at 8.40
p.m. one T.S.C Shekar, the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2
and son of claimant No. 3 were hit by the BMTC Bus bearing registration
No.KA-01-F-300 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver while he was
at the BMTC bus stand at Bangalore. Due to such hit, he fell down suffering
injuries and succumbed to the same. Claim in this regard was laid under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation on the plea that the deceased was a
permanent employee in the State Government working as a Superintendent on a
salary of Rs.12,239/- with other benefits of service and was aged 53 years. Due
to his sudden demise, they lost dependency as also consortium to the first
claimant and love and affection to the second and third claimants. The claim
was resisted by the BMTC contending that the vehicle in question was not
involved in the accident and also contending that the deceased was in an
intoxicated state by consumption of alcohol as a consequence of which he imbalanced
himself and fell without involvement of the bus. By such a fall, he suffered
injuries and succumbed to the same. In short, the BMTC disputed involvement of
the bus as a primary cause for the accident in question and thus sought to
absolve itself of the noxious liability to pay compensation.
Considering the
evidence adduced the MACT fixed the loss of
dependency of
Rs.10,77,032/- to which certain amounts were added towards conventional heads
to arrive at the amount of Rs.11,04,032/-. The stand of the appellant was that
the negligent act of the deceased himself had resulted in the accident and
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Before the High
Court it was submitted that the deceased was in an intoxicated state and, therefore,
because of his negligence the accident occurred. The High Court noticed that
there was no averment in the written statement and no evidence was led in that
regard. The High Court also did not find any substance in the plea that the
multiplier of 12 as adopted was in the higher side. Accordingly, the appeal was
dismissed.
4.
In
support of the appeal the stands taken before the High Court were reiterated.
5.
No
one appeared on behalf of respondent in spite of service of respondent.
6.
So
far as the stand that the accident occurred because the deceased was in an
intoxicated state is concerned, the High Court has rightly noted that in the
absence of any pleading and evidence to substantiate the stand there was no
scope for accepting the plea.
7.
Coming
to the question as to whether the multiplier is on the higher side, it appears
that the deceased was aged about 53 years on the date of accident. That being
so the appropriate multiplier would be 8. On that basis loss of dependency
comes to Rs.7,83,296/-. Since there is no challenge to the amount awarded under
conventional heads, the amount awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High
Court i.e. Rs.70,000/- is maintained. The compensation is fixed at
Rs.8,53,296/-. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of the claim. While issuing notice on 10th July, 2008 a sum of
Rs.7,00,000/- was directed to be deposited which it is stated has been
deposited. The balance amount in terms of the present judgment shall be
deposited within six weeks to the concerned MACT. The mode of withdrawal
include the amount to be kept in fixed deposit shall be fixed by the Tribunal.
8.
The
Appeal is disposed of.
........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.........................................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3