- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9624 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNIRAJA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.35, 3RD CROSS, THAMMANNA LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURA, BENGALURU-560084. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2224/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU [SCCH-5], AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,30,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER SUBMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19891 by respondent, before the Tribunal, who is the owner of the bus, calling in question the judgment and award dated 23.08.2018 passed in MVC No.2224/2017 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-5)2, questioning the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence as well as quantum of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident which occurred on 29.05.2015, the mother of the deceased filed 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 a claim petition, whereunder it was the case of the claimant that when the deceased was riding his motor cycle carefully and cautiously, following traffic rules, a bus going in front being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without following any traffic rules applied the brake at a road bump, due to which, the motor cycle being ridden by the deceased hit the bus from behind, causing the accident in question. The owner of the bus, who was arrayed as the respondent in the claim proceedings contested the same. It is the contention of the owner of the bus that the deceased was solely negligent in causing the accident in question and that the driver of the bus was in no manner negligent in causing the accident. 4. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and the Investigating Officer as PW.2. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 23.08.2018 has recorded a finding that the driver of the bus as well as the rider of the motor cycle - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 equally contributed to causing the accident. Further, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable as Rs.12,60,200/-, deducted 50% towards the negligence of the deceased and awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,30,100/- together with interest at 9% per annum and directed the respondent/owner of the bus to pay the said compensation. Being aggrieved, the owner of the bus has preferred the present appeal. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel Sri D. Vijaykumar for the appellant/owner of the bus that there was no fault of the driver of the bus in causing the accident in question and that the Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the driver of the bus also contributed in causing the accident in question to the extent of 50%. It is further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation as also interest awarded is on the higher side. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri R.V. Shivananda Reddy appearing for the claimant/respondent justifies the finding on the negligence and further contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as also the interest is just and proper. 7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i) “Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation as also the interest awarded is in excess?" Re. Question No.(i) 8. It is the case of the claimant that when the deceased was riding his motor cycle, the bus owned by the respondent suddenly applied the brake when approaching a speed breaker causing the accident in question. It is the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 specific contention of the respondent in the statement of objections that the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident in question in as much as he was driving the bus slowly, cautiously by following all the traffic rules and when he applied the brake, the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle, did not maintain the requisite distance between the two vehicles and was driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he could not stop the motor cycle and hit the bus from behind thereby causing accident in question. 9. 9. The claimant (PW.1) was not an eye witness to the accident. The Investigating Officer (PW.2) has been examined. It is noticed that the charge sheet has been filed against the deceased who was rider of the motorcycle. The Investigating Officer (PW.2), who was examined on behalf of the claimant, deposed consistent with the charge sheet filed. Hence, he was treated as hostile and was cross-examined by the claimant. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and he has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 deposed consistent with the case of the owner of the bus as averred in the statement of objections. 10. The Tribunal appreciating the material on record has noticed that no independent eye witness has been examined by either of the parties. Further, holding that the Tribunal is not bound by the charge sheet filed by the police authorities for the purpose of considering the aspect of negligence, after noticing the material on record, has held that the driver of the bus, without giving any indication, suddenly applied the brake which resulted in the deceased who was riding his motor cycle, hitting the bus from behind. It is further recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the bus who was aware of the speed breakers existing on the road, did not make an attempt to avoid the accident. 11. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the rider of the motor cycle did not have a driving licence or was not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 wearing a helmet, having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has adequately, after appreciating all the relevant material, recorded a finding that both the driver of the bus and the deceased have contributed to the extent of 50% each in causing the accident. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said finding, having regard to the facts in the present case is just and proper and not liable to be interfered with. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. Re: Question No.(ii): 12. The deceased was a bachelor. No documents have been produced to demonstrate his income. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income, applied 40% towards future prospectus, deducted ½ towards personal expenses, applied the appropriate multiplier '18' and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency. The medical expenses incurred have also been awarded. The claimant has also not sought for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal having granted - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 adequate compensation on various heads, the said quantum of compensation is also not interfered with. 13. There is a justification to the contention put forth by learned counsel for the appellant that the rate of interest awarded 9% is on the higher side. Taking judicial notice of the interest awarded towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7% p.a., Hence, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following: O R D E R (i) Above appeal is partly allowed. (ii) Judgment and award dated 23.08.2018 passed in MVC No.2224/2017 by VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Member, Mact, Bengaluru (SCCH-5) is modified only to the extent of holding that the compensation awarded by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26703 MFA No. 9624 of 2018 Tribunal shall be paid together interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment; (iii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other respects remains unaltered; (iv) The amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal; (v) The appellant shall deposit the balance compensation together with accrued interest within six weeks; (vi) The disbursement of the compensation shall be in terms of the award modified as above; (vii) Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; (viii) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MBM,VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25