- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3913 OF 2019 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 119/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 49 YEARS 2. N.GANESH S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. GURUMURTHY N., S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 28 YEARS 4. KUM. ASHWINI N., D/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED 27 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.10 MARUTHI LAYOUT, PILLAGANAHALLI BANNERGHATTA ROAD NEAR BANASHANKARI TEMPLE BENGALURU-560 083 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR D.S., ADVOCATE FOR A2 TO A4 SRI.K.V.SHYAMA PRASADA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B M T C BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.02.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.4909/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XIX ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 3913/2019 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.NETHRAVATHI W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. N.GANESH S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. GURUMURTHY N., S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 4. ASHWINI N., D/O LATE NAGARAJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.10, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, MARUTHI LAYOUT PILLAGANAHALLI, NEARS BANSHANKARI TEMPLE BANGALORE-560 083 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.V.SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4909/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, (SCCH-23), BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,34,279/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.4909/2018 dated 28.02.2019 by the XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and XIX ACMM, MACT at Bangalore whereby the Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.10,38,088/- and fixing the contributory negligence at 10%, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of an amount of Rs.9,34,279/-, both the BMTC as well as the claimants are before this Court. The BMTC has filed MFA.No.3913/2019 and the claimants have filed MFA.No.119/2021. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 24.07.2018 at about 7.45 pm., on Bilavaradahalli main road, near Eshwara Temple cross, Bangalore, the driver of the BMTC bus driven it rashly and negligently from Weavers Colony towards Bilavaradahalli in high speed and dashed against coming opposite two wheeler of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained head injury. The deceased died to his injury on the way to hospital. 3. The Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.10,000/- per month and future prospects at 10% i.e., Rs.11,000/- and deducted 1/3rdand the contribution to the family i.e., Rs.7,334X12 the multiplier is 11, towards the loss of dependency an amount of Rs.9,68,088/- was granted, towards the loss of consortium an amount of Rs.40,000/- was granted, towards the loss of love and affection an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted, towards the transportation of dead body and funeral expenses an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted. The Tribunal had awarded compensation as the table given below: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 9,68,088/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 2. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 40,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 10,38,088/- 4. Altogether, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.10,38,088/- and coming to the contributory negligence, the Tribunal had fixed the contributory negligence at 10% and the Tribunal had observed that Ex.P3 is a rough sketch, it shows that there is a little turn where the accident occurred. BMTC bus was moving from northern side towards southern side, but two wheeler of the deceased was moving from southern side towards another northern side. Ex.P3 speaks that the driver of the offending vehicle had enough scope to avoid this accident either by taking his vehicle towards his left side or by reducing the speed of his vehicle. The accident would have not been occurred if he had taken his vehicle towards his left side. There was sufficient space towards his left side. At the same time, the deceased had also enough scope to avoid the accident by taking his vehicle towards his left side. The accident would have not been occurred if the deceased had taken his vehicle towards his left side. It goes to show that the offending bus as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 well as the two wheeler of the deceased were driving/riding their respective vehicles in high speed and beyond their control. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 and records pertaining to the criminal case are sufficient to say that the accident occurred due to head on collusion. Looking at the facts, the driver of the bus has contributed his negligence to the extent of 90% by driving the bus in a high speed without trying to take his bus towards his left side. At the same time, the rider of the two wheeler has also contributed his negligence to the extent of 10% by riding his two wheeler in a high speed and in negligent manner. Therefore, the contributory negligence was fixed at 90% on the driver of the offending vehicle and the other 10% on the deceased and awarded the compensation of an amount of Rs.9,34,279/-. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the accident had taken place in the year 2018 and the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the income at Rs.12,500/- per month and had taken the income at Rs.10,000/- per month which is not correct. Then coming to the deduction, when the claimants are four in number, the Tribunal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 ought to have deducted 1/4th, but in this case, the Tribunal had deducted 1/3rd. Even under the conventional heads also, the amount that is granted is not a reasonable compensation. Then coming to the contributory negligence, he submits that the evidence of PW2, the sketch and the suggestion that is put forth by the BMTC to PW2 stating that as the accident taken place at 7.45 pm., because of the headlights the deceased may not have seen the coming bus. This strengthens the case of the deceased, that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the Tribunal ought not to have apportioned the contributory negligence at 10% on the deceased. It is submitted that on all counts the compensation needs to be enhanced and the contributory negligence ought not to have been fixed on the deceased. He relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and others1. Basing on that, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered all the four as dependents and ought to have deducted 1/4th. 1 (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 356 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 6. Learned counsel appearing for the BMTC submits the evidence of PW2 in fact supports the case of the BMTC that the accident had taken place when the bus was taking a right turn and after the right turn he has to stop the bus at a bus stand which clearly shows that the bus was not going in a high speed. The head on collusion and the IMV report clearly shows that there is negligence on the part of the deceased. It is submitted that as there is a head on collusion, the Tribunal ought to have fixed 50% of contributory negligence on the deceased and fixing 10% is not appropriate. It is submitted that all the claimants except the wife, the others are not dependent as they are majors and they are eking out their livelihood by working as coolies. It is submitted that they cannot be termed as dependents and if they are dependents the claimants ought to have adduced the evidence which they have failed to do so. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50%, but not 1/3rd and it is submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, the Tribunal had considered rightly how the accident had taken place and what was the role of both the deceased as well as the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute about the fact that while the bus was taking a right turn, the accident had happened, it was a head on collusion and the bus was damaged on the right side. This Court finds some force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the BMTC that while the bus was taking a right turn and was about to stop at the bus stand, the bus must not be going in a high speed. However, as observed by the Tribunal to avoid the accident the driver of the bus could have taken to the extreme left and also the deceased. In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the contributory negligence at 30% on the deceased and 70% on opposite vehicle. 8. Then coming to the loss of dependency, considering that the accident is of the year 2018, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.12,500/- per month and 10% - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 future prospects would come to Rs.1,250/- i.e., Rs.13,750/-. With regard to the dependency, in the light of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited2 stated supra which is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the latest judgment, this Court is inclined to take all the four claimants as the dependents and 1/4th has to be deducted i.e., Rs.3,437/-, then his contribution to the family would be an amount of Rs.10,312/-(Rs.10,312X12X11). Hence, towards loss of dependency, it would come to an amount of Rs.13,61,184/-, towards loss of consortium this Court is granting an amount of (4X44,000) Rs.1,76,000/-, towards funeral expenses this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/-. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another3, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 10. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: 2 (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 356 3 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 9,68,088/- 13,61,184/- 2. Loss of Consortium : Rs. 40,000/- 1,76,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000/- - 4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 36,000/- 5. Legal expenses : Rs. - 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 10,38,088/- 15,83,184/- Enhanced amount : Rs. 5,45,096/- 11. Altogether, it comes to an amount of Rs.15,83,184/-. As this Court has fixed 30% contributory negligence on the deceased, it comes to an amount of Rs.4,74,955/- and if the same is deducted, the claimants are entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.11,08,229/-. 12. Accordingly, MFA.No.119/2021 filed by the claimants is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.9,34,279/- to Rs.11,08,229/-. 13. Accordingly, MFA.No.3913/2019 filed by the BMTC is partly allowed. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31909 MFA No. 119 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 3913 of 2019 ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. iv) The BMTC shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi) On 31.01.2023, the delay of 273 days is condoned on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. vii) No costs. viii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26