- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6785 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (B.M.T.C) KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT GIRIJA W/O LATE SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS SINCE DEAD R2,R3 & R4 ARE LR’S OF THE R1. 2. SRI KRISHNA SUBBA RAO S/O LATE SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SMT SABITHA RAO SUBBA RAO D/O LATE SUBBA RAO W/O SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. SMT SUNITHA RAO D/O LATE SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.68 1ST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 AMARJYOTHINAGAR VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S NAGANANDINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.JAIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4: V/O DTD: 02.07.2025 R1 IS DEAD, R2 TO R4 ARE THE LR’S OF R1 ) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.678/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-17, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,34,842/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION FROM RESPONDENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is filed by the BMTC (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for short), against the judgment and award passed by the Member, MACT, XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.678/2021, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.13,79,790/- along with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants, and has further challenged the finding of 75% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus and only 25% negligence on the part of the deceased. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 18.12.2020 at about 06.45 p.m., the deceased-Subba Rao was crossing the road from Ayodhya Hotel side at Trimurthi Traffic signal junction, Nagarbhavi main road and at that time, the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-F-9495 came from Mudalapalya with high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained head injury and thereafter succumbed to the injuries. 3. The Jurisdictional Police registered an FIR and subsequently filed a charge sheet against the driver of the BMTC bus. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the family members of the deceased seeking compensation for the accidental death of the deceased. The Tribunal, upon assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident in question was caused due to the negligence of both the driver of the BMTC bus and the deceased. However, the negligence of the deceased was assessed at 25% and that of the driver of the BMTC bus at 75%, and awarded compensation of Rs.13,79,790/- under the different heads as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 Sl. No. Particulars Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 11,70,000 2. Loss of consortium 40,000 3. Loss of love and affection 25,000 4. Funeral expenses 15,000 5. Transport of dead body 5,000 6. Medical expenses 1,24,790 Total 13,79,790 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Corporation is before this Court in the present appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-BMTC and the learned counsel for respondent and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who unmindfully crossed the road at a place where there was no zebra crossing, without observing the traffic signal. As such, he had equally contributed to the negligence. Hence, the Tribunal - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 has erred in fixing only 25% negligence on the part of the deceased and 75% on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus. By placing reliance on Ex.P4–Spot Sketch, he contended that the accident occurred at a junction where there is a permitted turn from south to east and that there is no zebra crossing on the road. 7. He further contended that the claimants are wife, 2 major sons and 1 married daughter of the deceased. They are not depending on the income of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal also erred in deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and in considering Rs.26,000/- as the monthly income for determining the loss of dependency. According to him, the deceased was aged about 78 years and was drawing a pension of Rs.26,000/-. After his death, his wife, claimant No.1, is receiving a portion of the said pension, i.e., Rs.8,668/-. As such, the said amount has to be deducted while calculating the loss of dependency. Thus, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents- claimants, by supporting the impugned judgment and award, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 contended that the Tribunal, upon meticulous examination of the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the award, which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. I have given my anxious consideration on both the submissions by the respective parties and also perused the documents and evidence available on record. REG.: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: 10. As could be gathered from the records, the death of the deceased, Subba Rao, in the road traffic accident dated 18.12.2020 is not in dispute. 11. Immediately after the accident, a suo-motu complaint was lodged by a Police Constable of the Vijayanagara Police Station, and an FIR came to be registered against the driver of the BMTC bus in Crime No.96/2020 dated 18.12.2020. Subsequently, the Police investigated the case and laid a charge sheet against the driver of the BMTC bus. 12. On perusal of Ex.P4–Spot Sketch, it is evident that the accident occurred at a junction, i.e., Trimurthi Traffic Signal - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 Junction, Nagarbhavi Main Road. At the time of the accident, the deceased was proceeding from south to north at the said junction. He had already crossed about 70% of the road when the BMTC bus came from south to north, took a turn towards the east, and dashed the deceased. Since the deceased had crossed almost 70% of the road, it was the duty of the driver of the BMTC bus to drive the vehicle carefully by observing the pedestrians, that too at a traffic signal. 13. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, though there was no zebra crossing on the road, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the contributory negligence at 75% on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus and 25% on the part of the deceased. The said finding of the Tribunal does not require any interference. REG.: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATON: 14. In order to assess the loss of dependency, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.26,000/- per month. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a retired employee aged about 78 years, and the Tribunal has considered his pension as his - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 income. Further, after the death of the deceased, his wife, i.e., claimant No.1, is receiving a sum of Rs.8,668/- as a portion of the said pension. This aspect of the matter is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the claimants. As such, it is prudent to deduct the said sum while considering the income of the deceased. Thus, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.17,332/- (Rs.26,000 – Rs.8,668). 15. Since the claimants i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not the dependants of the deceased, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses, then his monthly income would be Rs.11,555/-. The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be Rs.11,555/-. 16. As the deceased was aged 78 years, a multiplier of '5' would have to be applied. 17. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,93,300/- (Rs.11,555 x 12 x 5) towards “loss of dependency”. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 18. In regard to loss of consortium, the right to claim consortium vests in the dependent at the very moment of the death of the deceased, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. NANU RAM, (2018) 18 SCC 130. Since this right is a vested civil right and not a purely personal right, the subsequent death of the dependent during the pendency of the appeal or petition does not extinguish the claim. The cause of action survives to his surviving heirs or estate as his legal representatives. Therefore, even if respondent No.1, the wife of the deceased, died during the pendency of the present appeal, the compensation towards loss of consortium payable to her cannot be denied and is liable to be awarded in accordance with law. Consequently, claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 would each be entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- towards "loss of consortium", i.e. in all Rs.1,93,600/- and they would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.36,300/- under the "conventional heads." 19. The compensation of Rs.1,24,790/- awarded by the Tribunal under head of “Medical Expenses” remains unaltered as the same are proper and adequate. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 20. Thus, the claimants, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 6,93,300 2. Loss of Consortium 1,93,600 3. Conventional Heads 36,300 4. Medical expenses 1,24,790 Total 10,47,990 21. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.10,47,990/- as against Rs.13,79,790/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 22. The Corporation is directed to deposit 75% of the amount of compensation awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 23. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are equally entitled for the amount of compensation subject to their due identification. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010451792022 NC: 2026:KHC:36743 MFA No. 6785 of 2022 24. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25