- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3513/2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER BMTC DIVISION, K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …APPELLANT (BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAMESHA R S/O LATE RANGACHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. CHANDAN R S/O RAMESH R AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 3. ROHITH R S/O RAMESH R AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN R1 SRI RAMESHA R R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT NO.118, TYPE 02 GCCRPF, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD GCCRPF CAMPUS, YELAHANKA AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 064 4. THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.69, 2ND FLOOR Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 J P & DEVI, JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052 (INSURER OF THE CAR NO.KA-01-AF-3134) 5. XCHANGE LEASING INDIA PVT. LTD. 1ST FLOOR, PINE VALLEY BUILDING EMBASSY GOLF LINKS OFF INTERMEDIATE RING ROAD BENGAULURU – 560 017 (R.C.OWNER OF CAR NO.KA-01-AF-3134) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP.BY R1; SRI RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 23.10.2024) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.5114/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, SCCH-18 AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.37,95,420/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the judgment and award passed against it in M.V.C.No.5114/2019 on the file of the III Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT (SCCH-18), Bengaluru, respondent No.3/BMTC has preferred this appeal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were claimant Nos.1 to 3, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the appellant was respondent No.3 in M.V.C.No.5114/2019 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. Claimant No.1 is the husband and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are minor daughters of the deceased Mamatha. On 25.07.2019 at 8.30 a.m. when Mamatha was riding her scooter bearing Registration No.KA-50-R-5571 in front of Railway Wheel and Axcal factory on Doddaballapura main Road, the driver of the car bearing Registration No.KA-01-AF-3134 had parked the car on the road. He suddenly opened the right front door of the car without any indication. Consequently, Mamatha’s scooter which was in motion hit the said door, she fell down on the right side on the road, by that time, BMTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-3583 came from the hind side and ran over her. She suffered crush injuries and died at the spot. At the time of the accident, respondent No.2 was the registered owner and respondent No.1 was the insurer of the car bearing Registration No.KA-01-AF-3134 and respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 No.3 was the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.KA-57- F-3583. 4. Claimants filed M.V.C.No.5114/2019 contending that the accident and death of Mamatha occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing Registration No. KA-01-AF-3134 and driver of BMTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-3583. They further contended that Mamatha was working as Teacher in Vedic Lore Preschool and earning salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and they were depending on her financially and emotionally. They claimed that due to her death, they have lost all her support and suffered damages to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- and the respondents are liable to compensate the same. 5. Respondent No.2 did not contest the matter before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 contested the petition. In the statement of objections, they denied actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car and bus each. Respondent No.1 contended that the accident and the death took place due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC bus. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 (a) Respondent No.3 contended that the bus was being driven at moderate speed following traffic rules. Deceased herself was riding two wheeler on the left side of the bus and rode the same in rash and negligent manner and the driver of the car had parked the same in middle of the road. When he suddenly opened the right side of the door without observing traffic rules, it led to Mamatha falling on the road and due to such sudden event, driver of the bus was not able to control the same and the bus ran over her. The accident was due to negligence on the part of the deceased herself and the car driver. Therefore, the petition against respondent No.3 is liable to be dismissed. (b) Both respondent Nos.1 and 3 denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased and their liability to pay the compensation. 6. The Tribunal on framing necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and on behalf of respondent No.1 its Officer was examined as RW.2. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 7. The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and award held that the drivers of the car and bus each have contributed negligence equally. Further the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged 38 years and working as Teacher. Considering her income at Rs.22,074/- per month, deducted 1/3rd from the same for her personal expenses, granted 40% of her income towards future prospects, applied 15 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.37,08,420/- on the head of loss of dependency. 8. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.37,95,420/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum on different heads as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded in Rs. 1. Towards loss of dependency 37,08,420/- 2. Towards loss of consortium 44,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate 16,500/- 4. Towards funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses 16,500/- 5. Towards transportation of dead body 10,000/- Total 37,95,420/- 9. The Tribunal held that respondent No.1 being insurer of the car and respondent No.3 being owner of the bus - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 are liable to pay compensation equally and directed them to deposit the same accordingly within two months from the date of the award. 10. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not challenged the said award on any ground. Therefore the award against them has become final. Respondent No.3/BMTC alone has challenged the award both on the ground of negligence and quantum. Submissions of Sri D.Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for BMTC: 11. PWs.1 and 3 were not eyewitnesses to the incident. The complainant was not examined to prove negligence. The complainant who claimed to be eyewitness was not examined. The evidence on record shows that the driver of the bus was not at fault, he entered witness box as RW.1 and denied the allegations of rashness and negligence on his part. The police have filed false charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence judiciously. Exs.P16 to P18 and Ex.P20 to Ex.P22 the records of the alleged employment are created one and the evidence of PW.2 was not credible. Therefore, the Tribunal committed error in considering the income of the deceased based on such alleged - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 employment. The compensation awarded on other heads is also on higher side. Submissions of Sri Ravi S.Samprathi, learned Counsel for respondent No.4: 12. Admissions of RW.1 and the evidence of PW.3 show that the car was parked on the left side of the road. RW.1 though claims to have filed the complaint as per Ex.R1 alleging his false implication, there is nothing to show that the same was taken to any logical conclusion. On thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed against RW.1. Therefore, there are no grounds to totally exonerate BMTC. Submissions of Sri Naik Krishna Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the claimants: 13. Soon after the accident, on complaint/Ex.P1 the first information report was filed against the drivers of the bus and car both. On investigation, the police have filed charge sheet both against RW.1 the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the car. RW.1 has not challenged the said charge sheet. If RW.1 was falsely implicated, he could have pursued his complaint Ex.R1. But nothing was produced to show that he made any endeavour to challenge the charge sheet. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 evidence on record including sketch and the evidence of PW.3 eyewitness show that the driver of the bus was also rash and negligent and responsible for the death of Mamatha. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings regarding negligence. The evidence of PW.2 and the other materials on record show that the deceased was working as Teacher in school run by PW.2 and earning Rs.22,074/- per month. Therefore, the compensation awarded on the head of loss of dependency is just one. In fact, the Tribunal should have awarded compensation on the head of loss of dependency to all the claimants. The compensation awarded on other heads is also just one and respondent No.1 has already accepted the same. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. On hearing both side and on examination of the material on record, the questions that arise for consideration of the Court are: (i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident and consequent death of Mamatha occurred due to equal contributory negligence of the drivers of BMTC Bus No.KA-57-F-3583 and car bearing No.KA-01-AF-3134 is sustainable? (ii) Whether the compensation granted under the impugned award is just and fair one? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 Analysis Reg. Negligence: 15. Claimants contended that on 25.07.2019 at 8.30 a.m. when victim Mamatha was riding her scooter bearing registration No. KA-50-R-5571 in front of Railway Wheel and Axal factory on Doddaballapura Main Road, the driver of the aforesaid car which was parked on the road suddenly opened the right front door of the car without any indication. Therefore, Mamatha’s scooter which was in motion hit the said door and she fell down on the right side. By that time the driver of the aforesaid BMTC Bus came from the hind side in rash and negligent manner and ran over Mamatha leading to grievous injuries and her death. Respondent No.2/owner of the car did not contest the matter. The Tribunal has returned a finding that the accident occurred due to the equal negligence of both driver of the bus and the car. 16. Respondent No.1/Insurer of the car though had contested the matter before the Tribunal has not preferred any appeal challenging the award. Therefore, the award against respondent Nos.1 and 2 has attained finality. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 17. Respondent No.3/BMTC has challenged the finding of the Tribunal imputing 50% negligence to its driver in driving the bus. Respondent No.3 contended before the Tribunal that the driver of the bus was not at all at fault and negligence if any, was on the part of the driver of the car and the victim herself. 18. There is no dispute that on the complaint filed by one Aravinda, Yelahanka Traffic Police registered FIR Ex.P1 against both drivers. On investigation charge sheet Ex.P10 was filed against both drivers for the offences punishable under Section 279, 283, 304A IPC and Sections 134(A & B) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short). 19. It is no doubt true that the charge sheet is not the conclusive proof and PW.1 was not the eyewitness. However, to prove their case claimants examined PW.3 the eyewitness. He has spoken about the negligence of both the drivers. He has denied the suggestion that he was not the eye witness and he has not given any statement before the Police. Counsel for BMTC himself has suggested to this witness in the cross examination that victim fell down because of negligence of victim and there was space on the right side of the car by - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 which BMTC Counsel himself presupposed that PW.3 was the eyewitness. 20. The other contention is that the driver of BMTC bus was proceeding in his own lane by following all traffic rules, still because of the victim suddenly falling on the road, she came under the wheels of the bus and RW.1 the driver of the bus could not control the bus. But Ex.P3 sketch of scene of occurrence shows that the bus has deviated from its direction and gone onto the left side of the road. Had the bus driver proceeded in the direction in which the bus was proceeding, the accident could have been avoided. Further, the IMV report Ex.P7 shows that lower portion of left side body of the bus was damaged. 21. RW.1 relying on Ex.R1 tried to allege that his complaint about the accident was not registered by the jurisdictional police, therefore he filed the said complaint/Ex.R1 to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic. Nothing was produced to show that the said complaint/Ex.R1 was pursued and taken to any logical end. Whereas the charge sheet against him was filed not only for culpable negligence in driving the vehicle, but also escaping from the spot without attending to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 the victim. He has not sought for quashing of the complaint or the charge sheet. Thereby BMTC and RW.1 failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants and prove their defence. Hence the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of offending bus also contributed 50% negligence in the occurrence of the accident. Reg. Quantum: 22. The relationship of the claimants with the deceased is not in dispute. As per Ex.P19/the copy of driving licence of the deceased Mamatha, her date of birth was 18.12.1981. The accident took place on 25.07.2019. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, she had completed 37 years. To prove their contention that deceased was working as a Teacher in Vedic Lore Preschool and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the claimants relied on evidence of PW.2 and Ex.P17 the pay slips for the month of February to April and June 2019, Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 her appointment letters and Ex.P22 her attendance register. PW.2 is the Co-founder and HR head of Vedic Lore Preschool. As per her evidence, the victim was working as Teacher in their school from 02.01.2019 to 25.05.2019. Then she had resigned and rejoined on 10.06.2019 and was drawing salary of Rs.22,074/-. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 23. Appellant’s Counsel vehemently contended that those documents were manipulated for the purpose of this case and PW.2 was set-up witness, even otherwise, the victim’s employment was not permanent employment. In the cross- examination of PW.2 or other witness it is not disputed that the deceased was qualified to work as a Teacher. PW.2 denied the suggestion that the aforesaid documents were concocted etc. Since the said Institution was a private institution, if they had not maintained proper records, the victim is not responsible for that. In proof of payment of such salary, PW.2 even produced the bank statement/Ex.P18. The said document shows that the deceased was paid salary of Rs.22,074/- per month and last such salary was credited on 15.10.2019 i.e. soon after her death. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing her income at Rs.22,074/- per month. 24. Considering the nature of the employment of the deceased, her age and having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi1, 40% has to be superadded to the income by way of future prospects. As there are three claimants/dependants, 1/3rd has to be deducted for the 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 personal expenses of the deceased. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the applicable multiplier is 15. The Tribunal has justly applied all the aforesaid parameters in assessing loss of dependency. On such assessment, her annual income works out to Rs.22,074/- + Rs.8,830/- (40% of Rs.22,074/) = Rs.30,904/- x 12 = Rs.3,70,848/- 25. As per the Finance Act, 2019, the tax on the said amount works out to Rs.6,043/-. So income available in her hands would be Rs.3,70,848/- (-) Rs.6,043/-= Rs.3,64,805/-. After deducting 1/3rd for her expenses, the income available to the claimants would be (Rs.3,64,805/- x 2/3=) Rs.2,43,203.33/- rounded to Rs.2,43,203/- per annum. On applying 15 multiplier, the compensation payable on the head of dependency works out to Rs.2,43,203/- x 15 = Rs.36,48,045/-. 26. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram3, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each on the head of consortium 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 and compensation of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- on the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. As the claimants have not received any compensation so far, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, they are entitled to two revisions on the escalation on the compensation payable on the conventional heads. Therefore just compensation payable is as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 36,48,045/- 2. Consortium (Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.24,000) 1,44,000/- 3. Loss of estate 18,000/- 4. Funeral & Transportation of dead body 18,000/- Total 38,28,045/- Awarded by the Tribunal 37,95,420/- Enhanced compensation 32,625/- 27. BMTC is liable to pay 50% of the said amount which comes to Rs.19,14,022.50/- (Rs.38,28,045/- x 50%) rounded to Rs.19,14,025/-. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Though the claimants are not in appeal, it is settled law that even in the absence of the appeal, the Court has to award just and fair compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the claimants are to be awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.32,625/-. As tax is deducted from the income of the deceased which was not done by the trial Court, to that extent - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16083-DB MFA No.3513/2022 the appeal of BMTC succeeds. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/BMTC shall pay compensation of Rs.19,14,025/- to the claimants with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The appellant shall deposit the said amount, before the Tribunal on adjusting the amount, already deposited if any, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The order of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment of the compensation amongst the claimants and investment is maintained. Transmit the amount in deposit, if any and the trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7