- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7432 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. SRI. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. SRI. AJANNA S/O. LATE. HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 781, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KUBBALAMMA PALYA, (HOSA PALYA), KUMBALAGODU, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 074. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:2.5.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4753/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.10,88,100/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 2nd May 2015, passed by the Prl.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-1), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.4753/2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.10.2014, at about 10:15 p.m., the deceased Ajay was proceeding on a Honda Activa motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-41-EB- 5421 along Uttarahalli Main Road, from Kengeri to Abhiman Studio. At that time, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of a BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-1502 by its driver. As a result, he sustained - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 grievous injuries and succumbed to them while undergoing treatment. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and was working as a helper at McDowell Private Company Ltd., earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was supporting his parents, who are the claimants. With these reasons, the claimants prayed for an award of compensation of Rs.35 lakhs. 4. The respondent-Corporation filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider, who did not have a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. Claimants to prove their case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 18 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-18. The respondent examined one witness as RW-1 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 7. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the motorcycle rider as well as the driver of the bus in the ratio of 25:75. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 23 years, fixed his monthly income at Rs.6,300/-, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 8189, and awarded compensation under the following heads: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 13,60,800 Compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., 1,00,000 Cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses 10,000 Total 14,70,800 Less: 25% contributory negligence 3,67,700 75% is 11,03,100 Less: Rs.15,000/- interim compensation paid by BMTC 15,000 Rs.10,88,100/- 8. The Tribunal has awarded the above said compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 date of petition till its realisation. The same is challenged by the Corporation in the present appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused materials. 10. In the appeal, the appellant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider. However, the Tribunal erroneously apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 25:75, instead of attributing major negligence to the rider of the motorcycle. 11. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased and is not an eyewitness. PW-2, the pillion rider, claimed to be an eyewitness. In his cross-examination, he stated that they were trying to cross the road, at that time the driver of the offending bus came in a rash and negligent manner and hit their motorcycle. It was suggested to him that the deceased had not looked in both directions before entering the road and had unmindfully crossed the road, causing the accident. The driver of the bus was examined as RW-1. Upon detailed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 consideration of the evidence of PW-2 and RW-1, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the motorcycle rider and the bus driver in the ratio of 25:75. This finding does not require interference by this Court. 12. The claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,300/- per month. Though the learned counsel for the appellant disputed this, the amount does not appear to be excessive. Even as per the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of a victim in 2014 can be taken as Rs.8,500/-. Since there is no appeal by the claimants, there is no need to reconsider the same. The Tribunal added 50% of the income towards future prospects. The claimants examined PW-3 to prove the deceased's employment and income and produced documents marked as Exs. P-2, P-13, P-14, P-17, and P-18, which pertain to his employment and salary. However, those records do not prove that the deceased was a permanent employee. Also no appointment - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 letter was produced. The Tribunal held that he was paid on a work basis, indicating that he was not a permanent employee with a fixed salary. Hon'ble the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors1 held that if a person aged below 40 years dies in a road accident, 40% of the income has to be added for future prospects. Undisputedly, in this case, the deceased was aged about 22 years. Therefore, only 40% should have been added, not 50%. Additionally, as held in Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi (referred supra) if the deceased is unmarried, 50% of his income should be deducted for personal expenses. However, the Tribunal deducted only 1/3rd, which also requires correction. The applicable multiplier is 8189, considering the age of 22 years. Hence, the loss of dependency is reassessed and quantified as:(Rs.6,300 + 40%) × 12 × 18 × 50% = Rs.9,52,560/-. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 13. In view of the decisions of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, and Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to the compensation under conventional heads. 14. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. loss of dependency 9,52,560 2. loss of consortium (40,000 x 2) 80,000 3. loss of estate 15,000 4. Funeral expenses. 15,000 Total: 10,62,560 25% contributory negligence 2,65,640 75% is 7,96,920 Less: 15,000 Total 7,81,920 Awarded by the Tribunal 10,88,100 Reduction Rs.3,06,180/- 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on the higher side and not permissible. However, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 Tribunal, while awarding interest, followed the decision of the Hon9ble Apex Court as mentioned in the impugned judgment. Moreover, awarding interest lies within the discretion of the Tribunal, and there is no need to interfere with that finding. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,81,920/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.10,88,100/- awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent is liable to pay the same. 16. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 02.05.2015 passed by the Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4753/2014 stands modified. iii) The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,81,920/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22100 MFA No. 7432 of 2015 realization, as against Rs.10,88,100/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv) Remaining portion of the award is not disturbed. v) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK,AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18