The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Raveendran and Others

**MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943** **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 882/2017 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI** ## **APPELLANT/2nd RESPONDENT:** THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, MYSORE-15. BY ADV SHEJI P.ABRAHAM ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO.1** 1 RAVEENDRAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, PUTHUPPARAMBAIL HOUSE, SANYASIODA P.O., PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE-685 582, WARD NO.IX/4. 2 SHEELA RAVEENDRAN, AGED 53 YEARS W/O.RAVEENDRAN, PUTHUPPARAMBAIL HOUSE, SANYASIODA P.O., PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE-685 582, WARD NO.IX/4. 3 ABITHA P.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 24 YEARS D/O.RAVEENDRAN, PUTHUPPARAMBAIL HOUSE, SANYASIODA P.O., PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE-685 582, WARD NO.IX/4. 4 RAVINAYAK, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.MAHADEVANAYAK, NO.110/1, NAYAKARABEEDI, VYSARAJAPURA P.O., T.NARASIPURYA TALUK, MYSORE CITY, KARNATAKA STATE-571 120, DRIVER KA 09 F 5112 KSRTC MYSORE RURAL DEPOT, MYSORE, RAMANAGARA, KARNATAKA-562 159 (DRIVER). **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **2** THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was the 2[nd] respondent in O.P. (MV) No.882/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. The respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal were the petitioners and the 4[th] respondent was the 1[st] respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of Abin (deceased), the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the brother of the 3[rd] petitioner. It was their case that, on 2.7.2016, while the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle through the Bangalore-Mysore Road, a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09 F 5112 (bus) hit the motorcycle. The deceased sustained serious injuries. Although the deceased was rushed to the Raj **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **4** Rajswari Medical College Hospital, he lost his life. The 1[st] respondent was the driver and the 2[nd] respondent was the owner of the bus. The deceased was aged 21 years and was an Engineering student. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent who was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence the petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents. 3. The 1[st] respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex parte. 4. The 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement refuting the allegations in the claim petition. However, it was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. It was also contended that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bengaluru had dismissed the claim petition filed by the rider of the motorcycle, on the finding that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent. **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **5** Hence the 2[nd] respondent prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. The petitioners produced and marked Exts.A1 to A11 in evidence. The 2[nd] respondent produced a copy of the award passed by the MACT, Bengaluru, which was marked as Ext.B1. 6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the petitioners to realise from the 2[nd] respondent an amount of Rs.17,46,000/- with interest and costs. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2[nd] respondent is in appeal. 8. Heard; Sri.Sheji.P.Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent/owner. 9. The principal grounds of challenge in the memorandum of appeal are: (i) the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition relying on Ext.B1 award passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.3872/2017; **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **6** (ii) the fixation of the monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- is excessive; and (iii) the compensation awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings' to the petitioners is unsustainable in law. ## **Ground No.(i)** 10. Ext.A4 final report filed by the Ramanagara Police in Crime No.117/2016 substantiates the fact that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in **New India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Pazhaniammal and Others** [2011 (3) KLT 648 **]** has categorically held that production of a chargesheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A charge sheet filed by the Police after investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the accused-driver of the vehicle. If any of the parties do not accept the charge-sheet, the onus of proof is on such party to adduce oral evidence and discredit the charge-sheet. If the oral evidence is adduced by such party, **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **7** then the charge-sheet will fall into a pale of insignificance. 12. Despite the petitioners producing Ext.A1 FIR, Ext.A3 scene mahazar and Ext.A4 final report, the respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext.A4 charge-sheet filed by the Police. Merely because the MACT, Bengaluru has passed Ext.B1 award, dismissing the claim petition filed by the rider of the motorcycle, the same has no bearing to the facts of this case for the reasons that the respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit the charge-sheet and the deceased in this case was the pillion rider and the claimant in Ext.B1 was the rider of the motorcycle. Thus, the finding in Ext.B1 will not operate as res judicata as against the petitioners as the parties are different. The question of negligence has to be independently tried and established in each case, which the petitioners have succeeded and the respondents have failed. Following the ratio in **Pazhaniammal** (supra), I hold that it is the 1[st] respondent who was negligent in causing the accident. Hence, I confirm the finding of the Tribunal that **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **8** the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1[st] respondent. Accordingly, I hold Ground No(i) against the appellant. ## **Ground No.(ii)** 13. The petitioners had claimed that the deceased was an Engineering student, who was aged 21 years at the time of his death. The petitioners produced Exts.A6 to A11 mark statements to prove that the deceased was an Engineering student. 14. The Tribunal on an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased, including future prospects at Rs.15,000/-. 15. In **National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Fathimath Suhara** [2016 (3) KLT 459], a Division Bench of this Court has fixed the notional monthly income of an Engineering student for an accident in the year 2005 at Rs.12,000/-. 16. In light of the yardstick in the aforecited decision and considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2016, I do not find any error or illegality in the fixation **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **9** of monthly notional income of the deceased along with future prospects at 40% @ Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, I answer Ground No.(ii) also against the appellant. ## **Ground No.(iii)** 17 **.** The appellant has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for 'pain and sufferings'. 18. The petitioners had claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for 'pain and sufferings'. However, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased lost his life after undergoing severe pain, I do not find the said amount to be unreasonable or excessive. Therefore, I confirm the said finding and answer Ground No. (iii) also against the appellant. 19. On an overall appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and considering the elaborate findings rendered by the Tribunal, I do not fiind any error or illegality in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **10** 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **New Insurance Company Ltd v Kiran Singh & Ors** [2004 (AIR) SCW 4212] has deprecated the practice of insurance companies contesting genuine claims in a routine manner and dragging the parties to court and wasting enormous time and money. 21. It is to be born-in-mind that the accident occurred as early as on 2.7.2016 and it is nearly five years since the petitioners have been knocking at the doors of the courts seeking for compensation on account of the death of their bread-winner. It is trite, that the Tribunals are permitted to do some guess work and also exercise their discretion in awarding reasonable and just compensation, for which there cannot be any straight jacket formula based on arthimetical exactitude. I find that the Tribunal has, after a thread-bare analysis of the facts and the law, has judicially exercised its powers based on the provisions of the Act and the authoritative precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,while arriving at the conclusion in the impugned award. I do not find any justifiable grounds in the memorandum of appeal **MACA NO. 2656 OF 2021** **11** warranting the admission of the appeal at this stage, which would only be a wastage of judicial time and harassment to the respondents/petitioners. In the result, following the ratio in **Kiran Singh** (supra), I hold that the appeal is devoid of any merit and does not warrant admission. In exercise of the powers of this Court under Order XLI and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I dismiss the appeal at the threshold. ma/21.10.2021 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ## **/True copy/**