- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7799 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METRO TRANSPORT CORPORATION SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE -560 027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MAREMMA @ MARIYAMMA W/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 2. MASTER RAVI S/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 3. MASTER AKASH S/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS 4. MASTER YASH S/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS 5. SMT BIKSHAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022 ALL ARE R/AT: BY THE SIDE OF BBMP LADIES SCHOOL DEVAIAH PARK, SRIRAMPURAM BENGALURU-560 021 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.1210, ARKERE (K) HOUSE NO.1/1 TO 2/130 YADAGIRI -585 321 SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 & 4 ARE THE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. MAREMMA @ MARIYAMMA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY B.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3187/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 34,58,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The BMTC is in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 09.09.2022 passed in MVC.No.3187/2021 awarding total compensation of Rs.34,58,000/- along with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022 interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation, for the accidental death of one Mareppa @ Mariyappa. 2. The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. However, learned counsel for the BMTC is in this appeal vehemently contending that the Tribunal has erred in not attributing any negligence on the deceased, who was a pedestrian and because of his negligence the accident had occurred. It is contended that in the peak hours at 4.45 p.m., when the driver of the BMTC bus cautiously driving the bus on the correct side of the road, reached near the BBMP office near Corporation Circle, the deceased pedestrian without caring for heavy traffic tried to cross the road between the number of vehicles and dashed to the right side of the bus and as such, because of his own negligence, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Further, it is contended that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road, where there is no zebra crossing and that even though there was skywalk, the deceased pedestrian crossed the road in the peak hours without taking proper caution. As such, the Tribunal, without taking note of said fact, has erred in attributing negligence on the driver of the BMTC bus. He also contended that the Tribunal has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022 awarded exorbitant compensation under all the heads, which requires to be reduced by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record and the evidence adduced and has rightly awarded the compensation, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record particularly, Exs.P1 to P5, FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch and IMV report. 5. It is seen from the spot mahazar and spot sketch - Exs.P3 and P4 respectively that while the deceased pedestrian crossing the road towards Corporation bus stand, the bus came from Hudson Circle Road towards NR Circle Road and in the junction, to the extreme right side, the accident had occurred. It is the duty of the driver of the bus to observe the movement of the pedestrians on the road, that too, in a junction like Corporation Circle and that too, in peak hours, he ought to have been more - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022 cautious. This aspect of the matter has been clarified by the police in the chargesheet - Ex.P8. Admittedly, the chargesheet has been laid against the driver of the BMTC which was not seriously challenged by the BMTC by placing sufficient evidence. Had the driver of the heavy vehicle like bus, who can have the clear view of the road at his seat, exercised due care and observed the movement of pedestrian in a heavy traffic junction in peak hours, he could have easily avoided the accident. In such circumstance, I have no hesitation to hold that the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus. 6. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, on appreciation of entire evidence and material produced before it, has rightly awarded the compensation, which, in my view, does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58