- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 657 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NO 85, K.H. ROAD, N.G.O. COLONY, SUDHAMANAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 (INTERNAL INSURER OF BMTC BUS NO KA-01-F-4714) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C. K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT A G GIRIJA W/O M.N. SRINIVASACHARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SRI ROHIT KUMAR S S/O M.N. SRINIVASACHARI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. SRI S V NEELACHARI S/O M.N. SRINIVASACHARI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 4. SMT SHARADAMMA W/O S B NEELACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO 346, EWS, 2nd STAGE, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU-570 015. 5. SRI ROHAN S S/O M.N. SRINIVASACHARI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO 663, AA BLOCK 1ST STAGE, HUDCO, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU-570 015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.873/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.23,74,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 07.08.2023 passed in MVC No.873/2022 on the file of the Principal Small Causes and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 Senior Civil Judge MACT, Mysuru, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The claimants filed petitioner before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.41,00,000/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of petition till realization, on account of death of Sri.M.N.Srinivasachari in road traffic accident. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.23,74,000/-. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioners No.2 and 5 are the children and petitioners No.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased M.N.Srinivasachari. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.23,74,000/- with interest rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit. The Tribunal also apportioned the negligence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 of M.N.Srinivasachari as 10% and that of the driver of the bus as 90%. 4. On 11.05.2022 at about 7.30 a.m., deceased M.N.Srinivasachari was riding his motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA55-V-7183 at a moderate speed by following traffic rules and when he came near Marigold School at B.M.Road at Kengeri Hobli, Chellegatta cross, the driver of B.M.T.C., bus bearing reg.No.KA-01 F-4714 drove the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Motor Cycle driven by the deceased consequent to which M.N.Srinivasachari succumbed to the injuries at spot. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred appeal and mainly contended that on 11.05.2022, at about 7.30 a.m, while driver of the BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.number KA-01-F-4714 was driving the bus slowly, cautiously, on the left side of the Bangalore Mysore road which was under construction both for widening of the national highway and for metro rail - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 construction and it was a rainy season. There were number of potholes and they were filled with muddy rain water and the road was in very bad condition. The rider of the motorcycle came from behind with high speed in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking the bus from the left side, without wearing helmet, lost control over the motorcycle. His bike touched the middle portion of the bus. As a result, he fell down. The rear left side back wheel of the bus ran over his head and further contended that there is no negligence of the driver of the bus. The driver tried to give complaint to the police, but they refused to take the same. He has given complaint to the Commissioner of police on 11.05.2022. The photographs of the place of accident and CCTV footage also clearly shows that the driver never dashed the motorcycle from behind. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the claimants in collusion with police, filed false criminal complaint and the tribunal erroneously fixed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 their contributory negligence as 90%. Claimants have not examined the complainant who is nephew and close relative and they have not examined any independent eyewitness. Ex.P20 is the spot sketch. Ex.P19 is the spot mahazar. Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 are the photographs. Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 are photographs 4 in number. Ex.R6 is the CCTV footage. 7. He also relied upon citation, reported it. MFA No.7074/2016 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sree Naresh Babu dated 06.02.2017 and stated that the deceased Sreenivasachari was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident and it is in violation of Section 129 of the MV Act, 1988 and 230 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. As such, they are not entitled for compensation. Further, submitted that the deceased Srinivasachari contributed for more than 60% contributory negligence on his part. But the Tribunal erred in awarding total compensation of Rs.23,75,000/-. The compensation granted is excessive and question of payment of interest - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 on future prospects, does not arise. The children are major and married and are not dependent on the income of the deceased and they are not entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency. They are only entitled for loss of estate. As per the citation reported in MFA 103546/2019 dated 11.11.2020 in the case of Raju Singh Vs Sharanappa and others. The tribunal granted excessive amount under the other heads. Further contended that 50% is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and his contributory negligence is to be considered as 60%. Thus requested for reduction of the compensation. 8. Learned counsel of the respondent contended that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus. Immediately after the accident, his nephew gave complaint. Except the driver of the bus, no other witnesses were examined on their behalf. The tribunal erred in fixing 10% contributory negligence on the part of the Sreenivasachari and the consortium amounts were not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 properly granted. Thus requested for modification of the order. 9. Further, regarding the issue of contributory negligence, the counsel of the appellant also shown the CD and it clearly shows that the motorcyclist was travelling on the left side of the bus along with the bus and later how he fell down and died was not visible in the CCTV footage and the only bus came little bit forward. But respondent himself in his counter and also in the appeal grounds, clearly stated that motorcyclist touched the middle portion of the bus, fell down, but rear end wheel of the bus ran over on his body. Admittedly he was not wearing a helmet and it is in violation of section 129 of MV Act and 230 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to fix up the contributory negligence of the motorcyclist as 40%, (he was negligent in not wearing helmet and hence 10% and he was riding bike just by the left side of the bus and hence 30%) and that of driver of bus as 60%. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 10. Though it is stated that Sreenivasachari was working as a driver in the company of Amit and getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2022, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.15,500/-. He was aged 49 years and the multiplier to be taken is 13. Hence, petitioner is entitled for 25% towards future prospects as per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,500 + 25% X 12 X 13 – 1/4th = Rs.22,66,875/-. First petitioner is entitled for Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium. Petitioners No.2, and 5 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each are entitled for parental and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are entitled fililial consortium of Rs.44,000/- by each of them. They are also entitled for Rs.36,000/- under the conventional head. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 11. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below, Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.23,74,000/- to Rs. 25,22,875/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 12. The Insurance Company has deposited 50% of the total amount before the Tribunal and they are directed to deposit the balance amount after the enhancement along with interest within one month from the date of this order. Sl.Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards loss of dependency 22,66,875 2 Towards loss of consortium (5 claimants) 2,20,000 3 Conventional heads 36,000 Total 25,22,875 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 13. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award 07.08.2023 passed in MVC No.873/2022 on the file of the Principal Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge MACT, Mysuru, is modified. iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of 60% of the Rs.25,22,875/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.23,74,000/- granted by the tribunal. iv. Insurance Company is directed to deposit 60% of total compensation, after deducting the amount already deposited before the Tribunal, along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4117 MFA No. 657 of 2024 v. On such deposit, as petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are major children. They are not entitled for any apportionment and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are parents, hence each of them are entitled for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, they are permitted to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued on it. vi. Petitioner No.1/the wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the remaining amount along with interest accrued on the same. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89