- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5878 OF 2017 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 8 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 5878/2017: BETWEEN: BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY MR. F S DABALI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RADHA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O PRAKASH H P, R/AT # 65, 19TH MAIN, J.C.NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 086. 2. SRO PRAKASH H P S/O LALTE PURAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 SINCE DECEASED BY HIS SON/LR’S 2(A). SHRI TEJAS H.P. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI. PRAKASH H.P. R/AT #73, 20TH MAIN ROAD, J.C. NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A)) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1619/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF MATROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION RS.19,08,300/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A.FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL DEPOSIT. IN MFA.CROB NO. 8/2020: BETWEEN: 1. SMT RADHA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O PRAKASH H P RESIDING AT NO.65 19TH MAIN J C NAGARA KURUBARAHALLI BANGALORE-560 086. 2. SRI PRAKASH H P AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE PURAVANNA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR S(A) 2(A). SHRI TEJAS H.P. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 S/O LATE SHRI. PRAKASH H.P. R/AT #73, 20TH MAIN ROAD, J.C. NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 086. ...CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A)) AND: BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, SHANTHINGAR BENGALURU-560 027. ...RESPONDENT (BY MR. F S DABALI., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA.NO.5878/2017 FILED U/O. 41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W. SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 25.04.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1619/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX-ACMM., AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.08.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 CAV JUDGMENT The XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru, passed an award dated 25.04.2017 in MVC No.169 of 2015, wherein one Preetham H.P. met with an accident on 13.10.2014 and died subsequently. His parents filed claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.19,08,300/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.5878 of 2017 is filed by Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), represented by Managing Director, and mainly contended that the Tribunal relied on the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, and held that the accident is due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and he was charge sheeted by the police. They examined R.Ws.1 and 2 - the driver and conductor of the Bus. As per the evidence of P.W.3, Preetham was trying to board the moving bus and fell down due to his negligence. R.W.2-conductor of the bus clearly stated that she - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 was standing near the middle door of the bus, and when the bus was moving slowly, one person entered hurriedly into the bus and the second person i.e. deceased, tried to board the bus when the shutters of the door were closing, and he fell down due to his own negligence. P.W.3 stated that Preetham fell down from the moving bus at a distance of 12 feet from the bus stop. Even as per spot Mahazar and the sketch - exhibit P4 and P5, the spot where he fell down from the bus is at a distance of 12 feet from the bus stop and is at a distance of 10 feet from the Southern edge of the tar road. He clearly stated that Preetham tried to board the moving bus. Exhibit R1 is the copy of judgement passed in CC No.3615 of 2015, in which the driver of the bus was acquitted. The Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month, though he was studying with I year B.Com, and the multiplier was taken based on the age of the deceased instead of the age of the mother. The Tribunal granted excessive amount towards medical expenses without considering the genuineness of the bills under Exhibit P35 and granted excess compensation, and - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 the interest at the rate of 8% per annum is also on the higher side. Thus, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3. M.F.A. Cr.Ob. No.8 of 2020 is filed against the same award by the claimants i.e. the parents of the deceased for enhancement of compensation. They stated that they gave complaint against the driver of the bus in Crime No.76 of 2014 and the charge sheet was also filed against him. It is further stated that their son was aged 20 years studying I year B.Com. He intended to become a chartered accountant. He was working as a junior assistant in a private chartered accountant office and earning Rs.6,500/- per month as a stipend. If at all he was alive, he would have become successful chartered accountant. But the Tribunal granted meagre amounts under the other heads. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation and also interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. The manner of accident shows that, on 13.10.2014, Preetham H.P. was proceeded to BMTC Bus stand to go back - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 home along with his friends near ISKON Temple. A BMTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-01-F-3788 came to the said stop and deceased Preetham and one of his friends Guruprasad boarded the said bus, while other two of his friends stayed back at the stop to board another bus. The said friend of the Preetham first boarded through middle section of the bus and when Preetham was boarding the bus, the driver of the said bus moved the same to the front in rash and negligent manner, without any signal from the conductor and it caused a jerk movement. As a result, Preetham lost control and fell down from the bus on the road. The rear left tyre of the bus ran over him causing fatal injuries and on the same day, he was shifted to the hospital, but died on 14.10.2014. 6. Petitioner No.2 gave complaint against the driver of the bus. Petitioners also examined Preetham‘s friend as PW3, who is an eye witness to the occurrence. It was suggested to PW3 that Preetham was looking towards the friends in the shelter and saying bye-bye by looking back side and tried to board the moving bus after closing the doors and he himself fell down without getting the grip, but it was denied. Exhibit P9 is - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 the Copy of Statement of eye witnesses Ajay, Guruprasad, Harun Stevewaugh, re-statement of eye witness Sri. Harun Stevewaugh. Exhibit P10 is the copy of the restatement of the complainant and voluntary statement given by driver of bus. 7. The driver of the bus was also examined before the court and he stated that after getting the whistle from the conductor, he moved the bus slowly. At that time, two passengers hurriedly tried to enter the bus without following the traffic rules. One passenger entered and when the other passenger tried to enter, the door was closed. As such, the other passenger lost control and fell down from the bus on the road. He further stated that bus was having the hydraulic automatic doors, one in the front side and another in the middle of the bus. He also admitted that before moving, the doors of the bus should be closed. After confirming the closure of the doors, the driver has to move the bus. He further stated once the hydraulic doors are closed automatically, it is not possible to open them. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 8. R.W.2 is a conductor and she stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of Preetham and there was no negligence of the bus driver. Before moving the bus, the doors will be closed and it is not possible to anybody to put their hands into the bus from the said doors. Once the doors are closed, no one can board the bus. One boy came running, got into the bus and sat in a seat. She blew her whistle. Another boy came by running and tried to board the bus, but he hit to the closing door and fell down. Exhibit P8 is her statement and her signature is marked as Exhibit P8(a). She voluntarily gave her statement before the police in which she stated that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus who moved the bus without getting any signal from her side. She stated that the said statement was taken by the police forcibly. 9. The above evidence of the witnesses clearly shows that it is for the conductor to verify the entry of the passengers into the bus and after closing of the doors, she should give a whistle, so that the driver can move the bus. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 10. In this case, P.W.3 entered into the bus. When Preetam was about to enter, the conductor blew the whistle and the bus moved and the door was closed. As such, he fell down by hitting to the closed door. R.W.2 herself in her earlier statement stated that driver started the bus without any whistle. She changed her version and stated that accident occurred only due to the negligence of Preetham, who met with an accident. 11. P.W.2 is complainant and P.W.3 is an eye witness to the occurrence. They clearly stated that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. As both driver and conductor moved the bus without noticing the entry of the passengers, the hydraulic door was closed. As such, Pratham fell down by hitting to the closed door and the rear tyre of the bus ran over and hit him. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the BMTC that the accident occurred only due to negligence of Preetham is not acceptable. However, it was for Preetham to ensure before entering into the bus, but he failed to do so. Therefore, - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to fix up his contributory negligence as 20% and that of the driver of the bus as 80%. 13. The claimants i.e. parents of the deceased filed claim petition and they filed several documents pertaining to Preetham, who was aged 19 years old at the time of the accident. He was born on 23.10.1995. As he met with an accident in the year 2014, this Court finds it just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.8,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As he was aged 19 years at the time of the accident, the relevant multiplier is 18. He is entitled for 40% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi1. As he was a bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Thus, the loss of dependency 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 comes to Rs.12,85,200/- (8,500 + 40% x 12 x 18 - 50%). Further, the claimants are entitled for amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others3, and in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others. They are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi4. The claimants also incurred Rs.2,53,272/- towards medical expenses as per Exhibit P35. The said amount is also granted by the tribunal and it is confirmed. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.16,48,472/- and the compensation is reduced to Rs.16,48,472/- from Rs.19,08,300/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 12,85,200/- 2. Loss of Consortium 80,000/- 3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/- 4. Medical expenses 2,53,272/- Total 16,48,472/- 15. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) M.F.A. No.5878 of 2017 is allowed in part, and M.F.A. Cr.Ob. No.8 of 2020 for enhancement is dismissed. (ii) The compensation is reduced to Rs.16,48,472/- from Rs.19,08,300/- awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.16,48,472/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iv) As it is already held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 20%, BMTC is directed to pay only 80% of the compensation. (v) BMTC might have deposited 50% of the compensation as they also preferred appeal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the balance amount along with - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010545612017 NC: 2026:KHC:45684 MFA No. 5878 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 8 of 2020 interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. (vi) On such deposit, the claimants being the parents of the deceased are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued thereon, equally. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63