REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.    1251                      OF 2009   (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 15127 of 2008)

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ...Appellant Corpn.

Versus

Padma & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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