Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp vs Padma & Ors
- SCC(2009) 3 SCC 285
- Neutral2009 INSC 266
- SCR[2009] 3 SCR 464
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where negligent conduct by a defendant in a motor accident case is pleaded as a defence, it must be supported by both a clear pleading in the written statement and adduced evidence; the mere assertion of a defence without such pleading and evidence cannot be accepted to defeat a claim for compensation. Where a claimant for compensation in a motor accident case falls within the age bracket at or approaching 53 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 8 (rather than 12) is the appropriate measure for calculating loss of dependency, applying the relevant tables or principles governing multipliers in such claims. In motor accident claims, awards made under conventional heads such as loss of consortium and non-pecuniary heads are not to be disturbed on appeal in the absence of specific challenge, and shall be maintained as awarded by the tribunal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ...Appellant Corpn.
Versus
Padma & Ors. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
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
2 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.
3
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
4 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. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, February 25, 2009
5
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free