- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35314 MFA No. 5334 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5334 OF 2015 (MV-D) 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: 1. SRI. M.A. NANJUNDA REDDY, S/O LATE ASHWATHA REDDY, AGED ABUT 51 YEARS. 2. SMT. PREMA, W/O. SRI. M.A. NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. KUM. N. VIDYA, D/O. SRI. M.A. NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. NO.394, NEAR GNANABINDU SCHOOL, HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 083. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2 AND R3 SD) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35314 MFA No. 5334 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.8.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.4946/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.14,25,208/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short 'the BMTC') to set aside the judgment and award dated 11.08.2014 passed in MVC No.4946/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal XX Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Inspite of service of notice, respondent did not turned up and set exparte. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Sri. Anil.N., met with an accident on 23.06.2013. His parents - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35314 MFA No. 5334 of 2015 and unmarried sister filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.14,25,208/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed. In which, it is contended that the tribunal examined the driver of the bus, criminal case filed against him, ended in acquittal. He clearly stated that there is no negligence on his part but the rider of the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed the bus on the front side and thus, the entire negligence is on his part. They have not examined an eye-witness. Except the evidence of complainant, there is no other evidence on his behalf. Complainant is not an eye-witness. False complaint was given against the driver. The Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the bus is negligent. Exs.P6 to Ex.P8 are fabricated documents. Claimants have not examined the complainant. Compensation granted is excessive, therefore requested to set aside the order. 5. On 23.06.2013, rider of the Hero Honda Karishma motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-HB-3106, met with an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35314 MFA No. 5334 of 2015 accident with BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-FA-451. He sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. Petitioners examined PW.3, witness to the spot mahazar but he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Admittedly, a criminal case is filed against the driver of the BMTC bus. But learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case ended in acquittal. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, it was held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. He was not having valid license and it’s a new vehicle without registration. The rider of the vehicle met with an accident and died on the spot. The petitioners did not examine the complainant or an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is for them to prove the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus. Therefore, considering the manner of accident, involvement of the vehicles, this Court finds it reasonable to hold that there is contributory negligence of 15% for rider of the motor vehicle and 85% for the BMTC bus. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the income of the deceased was wrongly taken. As per the salary certificate, he was earning Rs.12,825/- and 50% was deducted towards his personal expenses as he was a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35314 MFA No. 5334 of 2015 bachelor. He further contended that the salary is excessive and compensation given is excessive. But this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.14,25,208/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and with these observation, the appeal is partly allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellate is directed to deposit 85% of the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order, on such deposition, petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same along with the interest accrued, on it. 8. The amount already deposited before the Tribunal is to be transferred to MACT. If at all there is an excess amount, it is to be refunded to the appellant. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22