Sri Siraj Ahmed S/O Haji Md. Norulla, Prop Reliable Motor Service Represented by His Spa Holder, Md. Ghouse Vs. the Regional Transport Authority by Its Secretary, Davanagere Region, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [ n.k. patil and; h.s. kempanna, jj.] motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 166 - accident claim - judgment and award - claim for enhancement - assessment of income of the deceased -non-consideration of the relevant material -re-determination of compensation under relevant heads - held, the deceased was aged 28 years, working as helper cum operator drawing salary of rs.4,592/- per month as per the salary statement ex.p 13 issued by the employer pw-3. when such being the case, the tribunal -is not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only rs.3,0007- per month. hence, it is appropriate to re-assess the income of the deceased at rs.6,000/- per month - further held, since the deceased has left behind five dependents, 1/4,h has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. accordingly, after deducting 1/4'h (rs.1,5007-) from the said income, the net monthly income comes to rs.4,500/-. the proper multiplier applicable in the case, as per the decision of the apex court in sarla vermel's case (2009 acj p.1298) is, '17'. accordingly, compensation payable towards loss of dependency is predetermined at rs.9,18,0007-(i.e. rs.4,500/- x 12 x '17') as against rs.3,84,0007- awarded by tribunal. - compensation is enhanced to rs.9,78,000/- as against rs. 4,14,000/-. (paras 5,6) miscellaneous first appeal is allowed in part.ordera.s. bopanna, j.1. the learned government advocate to accept notice for respondents 1 and 2 and file his memo of appearance within a period of four weeks. considering the nature of the dispute, notice to respondent no. 3 is unnecessary.2. the petitioner is before this court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to consider the representation dated 23.2.2010 of the petitioner vide annexure-e, for compliance of the orders passed in writ petition nos. 41739/2002 and 43360/2002 as well as the order passed in review petition nos. 296-331/2001 by the karnataka state transport appellate tribunal.3. the petitioner contends that at an earlier point of time, when a fresh grant of permit was made in favour of the third respondent, the petitioner had called in question the same in rp 296-331/2001. the tribunal after setting aside the same had remanded the matter to the regional transport authority, davanagere for reconsideration. though the third respondent herein had questioned the said order of the tribunal before this court in wp 41739/2002 and wp 43360/2002, the said writ petition was disposed of on 4.8.2003 upholding the order of the tribunal, but the petitioner therein was only permitted to ply the vehicle until the matter is considered by the regional transport authority. the grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of sufficient time, reconsideration as directed by the tribunal and upheld by this court has not been completed by the second respondent.4. at the outset, it is to be stated that considering that there is long lapse of time from the earlier order of this court and the date on which the representation has been filed, at this stage, it is premature to issue a positive direction to the second respondent to act in a particular way that is to implement the order of this court. in any event, the position of law is well settled that the second respondent would have to honour the orders passed by the tribunal and this court and in that context, the second respondent is directed to examine the representation dated 23.2.2010 and intimate the petitioner with regard to the action that has been initiated subsequent to the disposal of the earlier writ petition on 4.8.2003. it is needless to mention that if no action has been taken by the second respondent to implement the orders of the tribunal and this court in that regard, the second respondent would have to initiate action as directed in accordance with law.in terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents 1 and 2 and file his memo of appearance within a period of four weeks. Considering the nature of the dispute, notice to respondent No. 3 is unnecessary.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to consider the representation dated 23.2.2010 of the petitioner vide Annexure-E, for compliance of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 41739/2002 and 43360/2002 as well as the order passed in Review Petition Nos. 296-331/2001 by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

3. The petitioner contends that at an earlier point of time, when a fresh grant of permit was made in favour of the third respondent, the petitioner had called in question the same in RP 296-331/2001. The Tribunal after setting aside the same had remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Davanagere for reconsideration. Though the third respondent herein had questioned the said order of the Tribunal before this Court in WP 41739/2002 and WP 43360/2002, the said writ petition was disposed of on 4.8.2003 upholding the order of the Tribunal, but the petitioner therein was only permitted to ply the vehicle until the matter is considered by the Regional Transport Authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of sufficient time, reconsideration as directed by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court has not been completed by the second respondent.

4. At the outset, it is to be stated that considering that there is long lapse of time from the earlier order of this Court and the date on which the representation has been filed, at this stage, it is premature to issue a positive direction to the second respondent to act in a particular way that is to implement the order of this Court. In any event, the position of law is well settled that the second respondent would have to honour the orders passed by the Tribunal and this Court and in that context, the second respondent is directed to examine the representation dated 23.2.2010 and intimate the petitioner with regard to the action that has been initiated subsequent to the disposal of the earlier writ petition on 4.8.2003. It is needless to mention that if no action has been taken by the second respondent to implement the orders of the Tribunal and this Court in that regard, the second respondent would have to initiate action as directed in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.