- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9530/2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: MISS SHEELA R, D/O SRI RAMADASS, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.459,2ND A MAIN, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,VIJINAPURA, DOORVANINAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED SHERIFF., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1953/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM AND XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE,MACT, BENGALURU,AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,02,462 WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/ Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation represented by the Managing Director under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 28.08.2015 passed in MVC No.1953/2014 on the file of the XXI ACMM and XXIII Additional Small Cause Judge, MACT. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent. Ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the injured claimant had filed an application before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, but the Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence granted Rs.3,02,462/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation preferred this appeal and disputed the negligence on their part and further contended that scooter got skid and fell down in front of the BMTC bus. The driver of the bus, stopped the bus at a distance of 50 feet and they helped the claimant by sending her to the hospital in an auto rickshaw and there was no involvement of the bus. Also, there was no rash driving and negligence on their part. But the charge sheet was filed against them falsely. It is further stated that the complaint was received on 22.04.2014 i.e. after 1 and half day from the date of accident and there is no independent eye witnesses to the occurrence. 5. As per Ex.P3, Motor vehicle report, the front shape of the scooty was damaged at the left side corner. Left side running board was damaged. Hence, if at all BMTC bus came from behind and dashed the scooty with a high speed, the entire back portion of the scooty would have completely damaged. But there was no scratch on either side of the back or right side of the scooter and it clearly shows that the petitioner fell down due to the skid of the scooter. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 6. As per Ex.P5 wound certificate, it was mentioned alleged history of the road traffic accident on 21.04.2014, but it was not specifically mentioned that the scooter was hit by the bus. The petitioner before the Tribunal is aged 28 years, working as retail sales officer at Tanishq, Phoenix Mall, Whitefiled, Bengaluru and earning Rs.35,000/- per month. She was in hospital only for 4 days from 21.04.2014 to 25.04.2014 and the compensation granted is excessive and baseless. PW.2/Doctor assessed the disability as 33% to the whole body and wounds are healed and the skin grafting was done. Further learned counsel submits that the injured submits that her income was wrongly taken as Rs.10,720/- per month. Also, future income was deducted and the multiplier was taken as 17. They disputed the amount granted under the loss of future income Rs.2,40,557/-. Learned counsel relied upon a citation reported in ILR 2002 Karnataka 3355 in case of Subhashchan Jain Vs Ganapathy and another in which it was held, when there is absence of specific evidence, loss of future income cannot be granted. The amount granted under the other heads are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 also disputed and thus requested this court to set aside the order of the tribunal. 7. In order to prove the case, petitioner examined herself as PW1 and examined the doctor as PW2, and marked the documents under Exs.P1 - FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 - Sketch and Mahazar, Ex.P3 - IMV report and Ex.P4 - Charge sheet to prove the accident. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus. 8. The Respondent examined RW.1/driver of the bus and he stated that he was driving the bus carefully following traffic rules and regulations. He noticed a lady proceeding on motorcycle on the left side of the bus. She skid and fell down on the road, immediately the driver stopped the bus and along with conductor, he helped the lady to reach the hospital in an auto. However, they wrongly implicated the driver of the bus. It was suggested in the cross-examination that the statement of the conductor was not recorded by the police and he deposed falsely, but he denied it. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 9. Learned counsel for the appellant disputed the negligence on the part of the driver on two grounds i.e, one is that it was not mentioned by the petitioner in the wound certificate immediately after the accident and another is that in the IMV report, the back side portion of the scooter was not damaged. Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus, but he ought to have given complaint immediately to the depot manager, but he failed to do so. He came up with this version, only after filing of the case. Though he stated that the bus conductor also accompanied him, his statement was not recorded and he was not examined before this court. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not accepted. Admittedly, petitioner was aged 28 years working as a retail sales officer at Tanishq and earning Rs.35,000/- per month and the injured had filed Ex.9–Loss of pay certificate issued by Titan Company Ltd., Ex.P10–Attested pay slip for April 2014 and Ex.P11–Attested pay slip for the month of May 2014, in order to substantiate her version. As per Ex.P9, she was on loss of pay from 21.04.2014 to 29.05.2014, as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 she met with an accident and she did not get salary for 1 month. She was getting a gross salary of Rs.35,712/- and after deductions, net pay of Rs.33,580/- . 10. As per the evidence of PW.2/Doctor who stated that the injured met with an accident on 21.04.2014 and sustained deep wound in the dorsum of the left ankle with exposure of the underlying tendons with partial tear of tibialis anterior. Deep wound over the left knee. The wound debridement on left ankle and left knee and split skin grafting over the left ankle and left knee and was discharged on 25.04.2014. Further, Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. Ex.P6 is the discharge summary. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant disputed the disability assessed by PW.2. PW2 assessed 11% disability of the whole body. Accordingly, the loss of future income of Rs.2,40,557/- was calculated, but it was disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. Hence, considering the nature of the injuries, this court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.45,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 towards injuries, Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities. Further, she could not attend duty for 39 days, therefore, this Court also finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.35,000/- for loss of earnings, Rs.2,130/- towards medical expenses holds good and Rs.30,000/- for attendant, conveyance and food and nourishment. The total compensation is as below; Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,130/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Particulars Amount in Rs. Injuries 45,000 Pain and suffering 25,000 Loss of amenities 25,000 Loss of earning 35,000 Medical expenses 2,130 attendant, conveyance and food and nourishment 30,000 Total 1,62,130 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32679 MFA No. 9530 of 2015 13. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 28.08.2015 passed in MVC No.1953/2014 on the file of the XXI ACMM and XXIII Additional Small Cause Judge, MACT, is modified; iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,62,130/- along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,02,462/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Appellant is directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order; v. On such deposit, respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. vi. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- is to be transferred back to the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV_List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30