BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES Vs. N SETHURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BMTC has come up in this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bangalore dated 15.2.2006 in MVC No.4133/2004.

(2.) THE respondents/claimants are the parents of one Karthik, who died a road traffic accident that occurred on 5.6.2004 at 3.45 p.m. He was pillion rider of a scooter bearing No.KA-05-EQ-8895, which vehicle met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-1645 and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Basavanagudi traffic police have registered a case against the driver of the BMTC. THE deceased was 19 years. THE claim petition was lodged under Section 163(A) of the MV Act contending that the deceased was working as a salesman. THE Tribunal considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, deducting 50% towards his personal expenses by applying 18 multiplier has awarded Rs.3,24,000/- under the head loss of dependency. In addition, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads. Thus, in all Rs.3,59,000/- with interest 7% per annum is awarded. This order is called in question in this appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we have seen that in the claim petition, the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.4,000/- but the evidence shows that he was getting income at Rs.3,250/- per month. According to the appellants, deceased was doing nothing. Even if the contentions of the appellant is considered, the Tribunal was justified in holding the income of a youngman at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court cannot hold that the income of the deceased was more than Rs.4,000/- per month. In view of the contention of the appellant under Section 163 A while computing the compensation payable, only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased should have been deducted. As against the same, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenditure which according to us, is on the higher side. The Tribunal while dealing with the petition under Section 163(A) was required to award only a sum of Rs.4500/- under the conventional heads as against the same, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.35,000/- which according to us is mistake committed by the Tribunal. Therefore, on recalculation of the compensation payable to the claimants, considering the provisions of 163(A) of the MV Act, the claimants in all are entitled to total compensation of ?4,36,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,59,000/- as compensation as against the actual entitlement of Rs.4,36,500/-.