KSRTC VS. KRISHNAN

Facts of the case:

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation has filed an appeal against the common judgement and awards made by the Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Kolar on September 7, 1978 in Miscellaneous Cases (MVC) Nos. 40 and 39 of 1976( Krishnan), which awarded compensation of amount of Rs. 70,000 to the claimant/injured in Miscellaneous Case (MVC) No. 40 of 1976 ( Krishnan).

Let us discuss briefly the facts of the case against which this appeal has been made:

On June 15, 1976, about 4 p.m., the claimant were going to Bangalore in a bus with the registration number KLV 5913 that belonged to the original respondent-1 and was being driven by the original respondent-2 along the Madras Bangalore Road. The bus with the registration number MYK 5699 belonged to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (original respondent-4) and was being driven by respondent-5 when it collided with another bus near Kukri Tank in the vicinity of Narasapur village. As a result, the claimant sustained left hand injuries. The claimant added he was employed as a spinner at Madura Coats Limited in Tuticorin and were paid a monthly wage of Rs. 475. The claimant demanded Rs. 1,000,000 in compensation for both the loss of his left hand and his ability to earn a living.

After considering the evidence, the Tribunal determined that the drivers of both transportations had engaged in actionable negligence that contributed to the accident, and as a result, it granted the claimant compensation in the amount of Rs. 70,000/-.

The Karnataka State Road Transport has appealed the abovementioned judgement and award because it is dissatisfied with them.

Issues Raised:

(1) Was the Tribunal correct in its conclusion that the reckless and careless driving of the two drivers of the involved cars were liable for the accident?

(2) If yes, is the compensation amount given in the  circumstance fair and appropriate?

(3) Did the Tribunal have good cause for allocating the payment of compensation in the ratio of 40:60?

Arguments of Both Parties:

The learned counsel of the appellant argued that:

•  The conclusion of the Tribunal holding that the accident was caused by actionable negligence on the part of both of the drivers of the vehicles was unjustified. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation’s driver did not act negligently, in their opinion, hence the allocation of responsibility was incorrect.

• Alternatively, he asserted that the Tribunal’s award of damages was excessive and outlandish.

The learned counsel of the respondent argued that:

• That the Tribunal’s decision to allocate the culpability was unjustified because it involved composite negligence.

Judgment and its Reasoning:

The fact that both vehicles collided and caused both claimants’ (passengers’) left hands to be severed below the shoulder joint is undisputed. That fact alone demonstrates the carelessness of the drivers of the two automobiles. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is put into action as a result of this reality. We see no cause to disagree with the Tribunal’s conclusion that the drivers of both vehicles were to blame for the accident in the absence of any convincing justification from the drivers of either vehicle. Insofar as the bus’s passengers are concerned, it turns out that both drivers’ negligence contributed to the disaster in some way.

In Hiradevi v. Bhaba Kanti Das (1977 ACC CJ 293): (AIR 1977 Gau 31), a bus and an automobile collided, and the Tribunal determined that both drivers were careless and rash, establishing a case of joint tortfeasors. There is no doubt that the victims did not contribute in any manner to the accident’s cause, as, in the current circumstances as well. The case at hand is an unmistakably example of composite carelessness. As a result, both drivers are equally and severally responsible for paying the damages.

He was receiving a salary of Rs. 400 per month, according to PW 1 Chandra Sekhar, the mill’s welfare officer, in response to the inquiry of the amount of compensation. Immediately below the shoulder joint, he lost his left hand. The impairment is 80%, as stated in Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923. Therefore, the loss in income would be Rs. 320 per month and Rs. 3,840 per year. We decide on “10” as the multiplier taking into account the claimant’s age and the current interest rate. Our total now stands at Rs. 38,400. We believe it is right and proper to award an amount of Rupees 40,000 instead of the Rs. 70,000 that was initially decided upon after taking into account specific damages. 

Therefore, we conclude that the victim was given excessive compensation by the Tribunal.

Written by Ridhima Mittal an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin