- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7884 OF 2022 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION SARIGE BHAVAN K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NIRUPAMA C., W/O LATE BYLAPPA K R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. KUM CHANDANA B D/O LATE BYLAPPA K R AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 3. MASTER DARSHAN B S/O LATE BYLAPPA K R AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 4. SRI RANGASHAMAYYA S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 5. SMT CHIKKANARASAMMA W/O RANGASHAMAYYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT NIRUPAMA C., ALL ARE R/AT NO.42, 2ND CROSS SIDDAPPAJI NILAYA SRIGANDHANAGAR NEAR KTG COLLEGE VISHWANEEDAM POST HEGGANAHALLI CROSS BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 (PH); R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1020/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.84,35,074/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal is by the appellant-BMTC aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.08.2022, passed in MVC No.1020/2020 on the file III Addl. Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.84,35,074/- as against the claim of Rs.80,00,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present appeal is that; (a) On 06.01.2020 at about 9.00 a.m. when the deceased - Bylappa K.R is riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-02-JY-5407 on the left side of Magadi main road and proceeding towards Sumanahalli Circle, when he reached near Kottigepalya Bus stop, a BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-696, driven by its driver in a very high speed rash and negligent manner, dashed against a car and thereafter dashed the vehicle of the deceased. Due to the impact, deceased fell down and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 wheels of the BMTC bus ran over his scooter causing injuries due to which he succumbed at the spot. Thereupon, a claim petition is filed by the wife and children of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- on the premise that deceased who was aged about 43 years, hale and healthy working as a Postal Assistant at CMM Court Post Office, drawing monthly salary of Rs.51,165/- p.m. That he was contributing entire earning to the family. Untimely demise of the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, claimants were put to financial and emotional distress. (b) On service of notice, appellant-BMTC appeared and filed written statement. Accident in question resulting in death of deceased Bylappa K R is not disputed. However, it is contended that driver of the offending bus was driving slowly and consciously and due to certain mechanical defects the bus was taken to the right side and had stopped the bus. In the process the bus had come into contact with a car and an autorickshaw who in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 turn had dashed against the vehicle of the deceased causing the accident, to which driver of the appellant- BMTC was not responsible. The other claims made by the petitioners are also denied. (c) Based on the aforesaid facts, Tribunal framed issues. Wife of the deceased, the claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and one G.Pursotam has been examined as PW.2 and exhibited 30 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. One T.G.Venkatesh has been examined as RW.1. No documentary evidence are produced. On appreciation of the evidence the Tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus resulting in death of the deceased. Taking into consideration of salary which was drawn by the deceased as per Ex.P28 the Tribunal held that the respondents/claimants are entitled for sum of Rs.84,35,074/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is before this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 3. Sri. D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant-BMTC appearing through video conferencing and taking this Court through the records submits that Tribunal has grossly erred in fixing the liability on the driver of the Bus and that while calculating the compensation, Tribunal has not taking into consideration the amount deductable from the salary towards tax. He also submits Tribunal has not taken into consideration that upon demise of the deceased, respondents/claimants were paid retirement benefit which has not been included. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justifying the award passed by the Tribunal submits that calculation of amount is based on the documentary evidence produced in the nature of salary slip as per Ex.P28. He further submits that the other amount awarded as per judgments of the Apex Court. He also submits that since even according to the case of the appellant the offending vehicle had technical defects, no plea of negligence can be attributed on the other vehicles or on the deceased. Hence, submits that contention of the appellant with regard to liability cannot be countenanced. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. The twin point that arise for consideration in this matter are with regard to liability and quantum. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, in his evidence of RW.1 he has categorically admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that there was any technical/mechanical defects in the offending vehicle. He also admitted that IMV report at Ex.P9 does not refer to any technical defect. Such being the material evidence is available on record, contention urged on behalf of the appellant that offending vehicle was having technical defect resulting in accident cannot be accepted. 8. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, the offending bus before dashing against the vehicle of the deceased, had hit a car, seven two wheelers which had resulted in deaths of the two riders of the two wheelers including deceased Bylappa in the instant case. Facts on record would reveal that accident in question as - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 taken note of by the Tribunal has been caused on account of negligent driving of the offending bus. Therefore, the question of liability as raised does not stand for scrutiny and the same is rejected. 9. Coming to the question of determination of compensation Ex.P28 is salary slip. P.W.2 has been examined in support of the said document. There is no dispute of the fact that said deceased Bylappa was working as a Postal Assistant in CMM Court Post office. Thus, he was a permanent employee of Central Government drawing salary of Rs.51,165/- p.m. Age of the deceased was 43 years. Sum of Rs.200/- is deducted towards professional tax. Thus, salary received by the deceased was Rs.50,965/-. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 since age of the deceased was 43 years, 30% of the salary is to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the total income of the deceased per annum would be (Rs.50,965+ (Rs.50,965X30%=Rs.15,289.5 rounded off to Rs.15,300)= Rs.66,265X 12=) Rs.7,95,180/- 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 10. As per the Finance Act, 2020, if income exceeds Rs.5 lakhs and not exceeding to Rs.10 lakhs, the tax payable thereon is Rs.12,500/- + 20% of the amount by which the total income exceeds Rs.5,00,000/-. Calculated as such, Rs.71,536/- (Rs.12,500+Rs.59,036) is required to be deducted towards Income Tax. Thus, annual income of the deceased would be Rs.7,95,180/-(-) Rs.71,536= Rs.7,23,644/- rounded off to Rs.7,23,650/-. The Tribunal however has not taken into consideration the amount deductible towards tax as calculated hereinabove. 11. Since there are 5 dependents ¼ is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Age of the deceased being 43 years, multiplier 14 is applied. Therefore, loss of dependency would be Rs.7,23,650 X3/4 =Rs.5,42,737.5 X 14 =Rs.75,98,325/-. 12. As per judgment of Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram 2 clarified by the judgment in the case of United Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and 2 2018 (18) SCC 130 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 others3 claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and 10% escalation at the expiry of every 3 years 13. In addition they are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate, funeral expenses with escalation 10% at every 3 years. 14. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-BMTC regarding the amount received towards death cum retirement benefits and compassionate appointment received by the claimant No.1 not having been taken into consideration is concerned, the larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of SEBASTIANI LAKRA AND OTHERS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AND ANOTHER4 has held that the amount received by the claimant/legal heirs of the deceased under employee convenience scheme cannot be deducted while calculating loss of income, inasmuch as, such benefits are received by the deceased under the contract and the statutory benefits, same cannot be deducted under the compensation payable under Section 168 of the MV Act. 3 AIR 2020 SC 3076 4 (2019) 17 SCC 465 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 15. Since appellant has paid Rs.25,000/- towards exgratia payment to the respondents/claimants, the same needs to be deducted from the compensation. Thus, the respondents/claimants are held entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.78,26,325/- (Rs.78,51,325 - Rs.25,000) as under; 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is partly allowed. (a) The claimants are awarded compensation of Rs.78,26,325/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (b) Appellant shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sl.No. Head Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.75,98,325 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 2,20,000 3. Towards loss of estate Rs. 16,500 4. Towards funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses Rs. 16,500 Total Rs.78,51,325 Less exgratia payment Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs.78,26,325/- Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 84,35,074/- Reduced by Rs. 6,08,749/- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12499-DB MFA No. 7884 of 2022 (c) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the same to the claimants digitally on furnishing relevant documents. d) Registry shall transmit the TCRs to the Tribunal forthwith. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44