Smt. Sangeeta And Ors vs. The Divisional Controlleer

Facts

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) appealed against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in MVC No.604/13. The claimants, legal heirs of the deceased, filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation. The deceased was travelling in a KSRTC bus and died after falling while alighting, allegedly due to the driver's negligence. The claimants asserted the deceased was a Manager at Kabra Industries earning Rs. 10,000 per month. KSRTC contested the negligence claim and the deceased's employment details. The MACT found the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 13,40,000/- in total compensation.

Held

The Court held that the negligence of the driver was established. It was undisputed that the deceased was travelling in the bus and died while alighting. The driver moving the bus before the deceased had properly alighted constituted negligence. Regarding the income, the Court allowed the claimants' application to produce additional documents (VAT and GST certificates for Kabra Industries owned by P.W.2), which, along with Ex.P.8 and the testimony of P.W.2, proved the deceased's employment and monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding loss of future prospects at 25% of the income, as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi. Consequently, the compensation was re-determined to Rs. 16,45,000/-, enhancing the original award. The KSRTC's appeal was dismissed, and the claimants' cross-objection was partly allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Corporation's bus, as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? The petitioner (KSRTC) argued there was no clear evidence of the driver's negligence. The respondents (claimants) contended that the driver's action of moving the bus before the deceased had properly alighted constituted negligence. 2. Whether the deceased was employed as a Manager at Kabra Industries and earned a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-, and if so, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate? The petitioner argued that Ex.P.8 (salary certificate) was not sufficient proof as the salary register was not produced. The respondents argued that Ex.P.8, coupled with the testimony of P.W.2 (employer) and additional documents (VAT and GST certificates), established the deceased's salary. They also argued for the inclusion of future prospects as per the Supreme Court's ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi.