- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1117 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 1117/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SHAIK AFSAR PASHA (ALSO CALLED AS AFSAR PASHA), S/O SHAIK ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. MRS. HUSANA TABASSUM W/O. SHAIK AFSAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. MR. UZMAKOUSER D/O. SHAIK AFSAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, (MINOR REP FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 - SHAIK AFSAR PASHA) ALL ARE R/AT NO. 169, DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE NORTH , Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 BANGALORE 560045. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.2114/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-4), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 409/2021 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR B.M.T.C., K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 1. SHAIK AFSAR PASHA (ALSO CALLED AS AFSAR PASHA) S/O SHAIK ABBAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. HUSNA TABASSUM W/O SHAIK AFSAR ABBAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 3. UZMA KOUSER D/O SHAIK AFSAR ABBAS AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR AND HENCE SHE IS REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER ANDNATURAL GUARDIAN SHAIK AFSAR PASHA I.E. FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN. ALL ARE R/AT NO.169, DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE - 560 045. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2114/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,62,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 19th February 2020, passed by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru and MACT, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2114/2019. The claimants filed MFA No.1117/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation and the respondent-corporation filed MFA No.409/2021 challenging the said award on the ground that death was not due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for final disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.03.2019 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased was riding a two wheeler - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 bearing No.KA-03-JF-9480 from Mekhri circle towards Hebbal by observing traffic rules. At that time, the BMTC bus bearing reg.No.KA-01-F-4834 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result deceased fell down and sustained injuries to his head. Immediately he was shifted to Baptist Hospital, but the doctors in the said hospital informed that he was brought dead. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. The deceased was aged 18 years and was working as an electrician and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. The claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased and they were depending on the deceased. With these reasons, they filed this claim petition for grant of compensation. 5. The respondent-corporation denied the averments made in the claim petition. It further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 deceased, who was riding the two-wheeler. The deceased, came behind the bus and due to his negligent riding hit the bus and was solely responsible for the accident. The driver of the bus was in no way responsible for the said incident. The petitioners, with the sole intention of making a wrongful gain, have falsely implicated the driver of the bus. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 15 documents, as per Exs.P- 1 to P-15. Respondent examined one witness as RW-1 and marked document as Exs.R-1. 8. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and appreciating the material on record, held that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler to an extent of 5% and the driver of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 bus as 95%. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000 per month, added 40% of the income towards future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18, and deducted 50% towards personal expenses. Including the compensation awarded under the notional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 16,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount under the following heads, and held that the claimants are entitled to 95% of the same. Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 15,12,000/- Loss of consortium 1,20,000/- Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 16,62,000/- 9. I have heard the arguments on both side and perused the material on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 10. The fact of the accident, the death of Mohammed Shahid Pasha due to the injuries sustained therein, and the place of the accident are not in dispute. The serious dispute is in respect of the issue of rash and negligent driving by the respective drivers of the vehicles involved. It is also not in dispute that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus and that, after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against him. Copies of the same have been placed on record as Exhibits P1 to P8. From the entire investigation, it appears that the concerned police did not find any negligence on the part of the deceased. The statements of the eyewitnesses recorded during the investigation indicate that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. 13. It is the case of the claimants that the driver of the bus, being in a hurry to reach his destination, suddenly took a right turn and entered the underpass in order to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 proceed towards Sulthanpet, and in that process, the accident occurred. Exhibit P8, the IMV report, reveals that the rear left-side engine round guard and the front headlight body and meter board of the motorcycle were damaged. It further appears that the damage on the right side was caused due to the fall of the motor cycle. If, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent- corporation, the rider of the motorcycle had hit the bus, there would have been corresponding damage to the right side of the bus. However, there was no indication of any fresh damage to the bus, which suggests that the rider of the two-wheeler did not collide with it as alleged. 14. The respondent-corporation relies on the evidence of R.W.1, who, admittedly, was an accused in the criminal case registered in connection with the accident in question. This fact was not disputed during his cross- examination. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that he would depose true facts before the Court. The respondent has also failed to examine any of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 passengers of the bus to establish negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Moreover, the competent authority, after conducting investigation, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The driver did not challenge the said charge sheet on the ground that a false case was registered against him, though he had no committed any crime or responsible for accident. In these circumstances, this Court cannot disregard the charge sheet unless there are strong reasons to believe that it is incorrect or that a false case was registered against the owner and driver of the bus to claim compensation. The Tribunal has already examined this aspect in detail, and upon reconsideration, there is no reason to conclude that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation contends that the deceased was not wearing a helmet, did not possess a valid driving licence, and was a minor at the time of the accident. He further submits that the deceased - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. However, it is a settled principle of law that merely because the rider or driver of a vehicle does not hold a valid driving licence, it cannot automatically be presumed that he was driving negligently. Such a finding must depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of each case.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh and Others1 at paragraph No.8 has held as under: "8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a 1 AIR 2008 SC 2405 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence." 11. In the said case, without any other material, the Tribunal as well as the High Court held that since the rider of the vehicle had no valid driving licence, it amounted to negligent riding. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court did not agree with this view and, on the contrary, held that mere non-holding of a driving licence by itself does not amount to negligent driving of the vehicle. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not tenable. Not holding a driving license and not wearing a helmet may be an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act, for the wrong doer is liable to fine. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants has produced the SSLC markscard of the deceased vide Ex.P.15 to show that he was aged 18 years at the time of accident. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he stated that the deceased - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 was holding a license at the time of the accident, but the said license was misplaced or lost. 13. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus, and the Tribunal has erroneously held that the rider of the two-wheeler was also responsible for the accident. The said finding is erroneous and hence, set aside. 14. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m., since claimants were unable to prove his income as Rs.20,000/- p.m. On perusal of the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Following the said chart, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.14,000/-. There is no dispute in respect of addition of 40% of the income towards future prospects and application of multiplier of '18' and deduction of 50% of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 the income towards personal expenses. On that basis, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is recalculated. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others2 has held that each claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The same is applied to the facts of present case. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for following amount of compensation. Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (14000+ 40%*12*18*50%) 21,16,800/- Loss of consortium 1,20,000/- Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 22,66,800/- 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.16,62,000/-. Hence the enhancement is Rs.6,04,800/-, which is rounded off to Rs.6,05,000/-. As ordered by the Tribunal 5% of the compensation was deducted i.e., Rs.83,100/- (Rs.16,62,000/-x5%), but the claimants are entitled for the said amount. 17. The claimants are also entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization. 18. Undisputedly, the respondent-corporation is liable to pay the said amount. 19. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA No.1117/2021 is allowed in part and MFA No.409/2021 is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 19th February 2020, passed in MVC.No.2114/2019, by the Member, MACT, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 XVIII Adddl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, stands modified. iii) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,05,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization. iv) The claimants are also entitled for 5% of the compensation, which was deducted as per the order of the Tribunal i.e., Rs.83,100/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till its realization. iv) The respondent-corporation shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The apportionment, release and deposit of the amount as ordered by the Tribunal. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the corporation in MFA No.409/2021 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. vii) Draw award accordingly. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43577 MFA No. 1117 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 409 of 2021 Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE HDK CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39