Managing Director, Tnstc vs Suguna & Ors

Managing Director, TNSTC ..Appellant

Versus

Suguna and Ors. ..Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single

Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the

claimants-respondents. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 19.3.1998 a bus owned by the appellant-corporation was plying

between Erode to Mysore via Nanjangud. At about 8.15 p.m. one Jayasheela

(hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') who was driving two wheeler

sustained injuries, because the bus dashed against the deceased who died on

the spot. Respondent No.1 the widow of the deceased and his two minor

children filed a Claim Petition claiming compensation in terms of Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act'). Appellant filed its

objections denying the liability and took the stand that the accident occurred

because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. The first Additional

Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mysore (in

short the `MACT') awarded a sum of Rs.1,83,500/- as compensation

alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing the Claim Petition.

Questioning quantum of the compensation, respondents Nos.1, 2 and

3 filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court fixed the quantum

at Rs.4,05,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% as was directed by the

MACT.

2

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that no basis

has been indicated for awarding the compensation. By a practically non-

reasoned order, appeal has been disposed of.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted

that though the judgment is not very elaborate, yet the basis can be found

out from the impugned order. In the normal course in a case where an

appeal has been disposed of by a practically non reasoned order, the matter

is remitted for fresh consideration. But considering the passage of time and

the limited nature of the controversy with the assistance of learned counsel

for the parties, we have gone through the records. The accident took place

on 19.3.1998. The deceased according to the post mortem report was aged

about 24 years. Though it was claimed that he was getting salary of

Rs.2,500/- p.m., there was no evidence adduced to substantiate the claim.

The MACT noticed that no evidence was adduced to substantiate the

income and, therefore, notional income of Rs.1,500/- p.m. was fixed. One-

third was deducted for personal expenses. The High Court did not indicate

any reason to fix the income at Rs.2,500/- p.m. though it deducted one-third

for personal expenses.

3

5. In the aforesaid background, the amount of compensation is fixed at

Rs.3 lacs to be paid with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing

of claim application. While working out the interest payable the amounts

already paid shall be duly taken note of and the interest would be calculated

on the balance amount payable.

6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

....................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

....................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, January 23, 2009

4