IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 934 of 2002() --------------------- OPMV.1077/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN,SC KSRTC. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT] ------------------------------------------- 1. ANSAMMA ANTONY W/O. LATE N.J.ANTONY ROSE BHAVAN, KARUMADY, NOW RESIDING AT ANPATHIL CHIRA HOUSE, CHENNAMKARY P.O. 2. MARIAMMA ANTONY, (MINOR) D/O. LATE N.J.ANTONY, DO. 3. JOSEPH ANTONY, (MINOR) S/O. LATE ANTONY, DO. 4. K.A.KURIAKOSE S/O. K.K.ABRAHAM, KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARINCHY,CHANGANACHERY, KOTTAYAM. (MINORS PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 1ST PETITIONER) BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANVAS KHAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 5620 OF 2002 IN MFA 934 OF 2002 DISMISSED 25.6.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/-V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.F.A.No. 934 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard standing counsel for KSRTC appearing for the appellant, and counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Even though counsel for KSRTC contended that driver was acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him, that is rash and negligent driving leading to accident, we do not think conviction in the criminal case is required for awarding compensation. Accident admittedly was caused by the vehicle owned by KSRTC. There is nothing to indicate that victim jumped in front of the bus but was a pedestrian hit by the bus. Probably he entered the road within the braking distance, and the driver, despite applying brake, could not have saved him. In any case, the only direct evidence is that of the interested persons like the driver of the KSRTC bus. Since the accident has caused death and prima facie, there is nothing to indicate that the accident is on account of 2 negligence of the victim, we do not think we should interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that KSRTC should compensate the dependants of the victim. We therefore uphold the award of the Tribunal in regard to liability of KSRTC and the amount of compensation. However, we feel the interest ordered at 12.5 per cent is not tenable because the Supreme Court in the decision in DHARAMPAL V. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (2008) 2 K.L.T. 691 (SC) has held that interest is a varying factor depending on facts of each case. Following the said judgment, we reduce the interest to 7.5 per cent per annum as against 12.5 per cent awarded by MACT. Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award to the extent indicated above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V. K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3