- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND M.F.A. No.5364 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER KSRTC TRANSPORT HOUSE, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. (REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O K KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT RUPESH NILAYA, PAVAN PAINT ROAD, KRISHNAPPA GARDEN. CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560073. 2. SRI KUMAR K S/O CHALUVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT RUPESH NILAYA, PAVAN PAINT ROAD, KRISHNAPPA GARDEN, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560073. 3. THE MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., NO. 9/2, 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PUTTARAJU C.S., ADV. FOR R2 SRI SATHEESH H.K., ADV. FOR R1 SRI P.B. RAJU, ADV. FOR R3) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.01.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.1344/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-16), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.24,27,600/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), respondent before the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH-16) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) is before this Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), questioning the saddling of 90% contributory negligence on it under judgment and award dated 31.01.2024 in MVC.No.1344/2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the mother of deceased Jagadish.K., filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking compensation for the accidental death of her son in a road traffic accident that took place on 22.01.2022 involving KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-06-F-1186 and a two-wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-HF-0568. It is claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m., and was aged 24 years. 3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 3 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections. Respondent No.1/appellant herein filed objections denying the allegation that accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 denied the claim petition averments including the monthly income of the deceased. It is further stated that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. It is specifically contended that rider of the two-wheeler took to its right turn and the handle of the two-wheeler touched the KSRTC bus due to which, rider and pillion rider of the said two-wheeler fell down and sustained injuries, which resulted in death of pillion rider son of the claimant. 4. Respondent No.3 insurance company in its objection admitted the existence of policy to the motorcycle and further it is submitted that, rider of the two-wheeler had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and there is breach of policy condition. 5. In support of her claim, the claimant herself examined as PW1, apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The respondents examined RW1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 The Tribunal on scrutiny of the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.24,27,600/- along with interest at 6% p.a., on the following heads: Sl. No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs. 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 23,43,600-00 2 Loss of filial consortium Rs. 48,000-00 3 Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 24,27,600-00 6. While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,500/- p.m., added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and deducted 50% of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and saddled the contributory negligence to an extent of 90% on the driver of appellant bus and 10% on the third respondent-insurer of two-wheeler. 7. The appellant/Corporation aggrieved by saddling of 90% of the contributory negligence on the driver of the bus, contending that rider of the two-Wheeler - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 had equally contributed to the occurrence of accident is before this Court in this appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel Sri.Samarth Prakash for appellant, learned counsel Satheesh.H.K., for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri.Puttaraju.C.S., for respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri.P.B.Raju for respondent No.3. Perused the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court records. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. It is specifically contended that the rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorbike without wearing helmet and the KSRTC bus was behind the two-wheeler. When a two-wheeler came from opposite side, the rider of the motorcycle took suddenly right turn and the handle of the two-wheeler touched the bus, which resulted in falling down of rider and pillion - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 rider. In that regard, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Ex.P5 – sketch as well as Ex.P4 – IMV Report. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that when the Tribunal has concluded that rash negligent riding of the motorcycle is proved, it ought to have saddled the contributory negligence equally between the driver of the bus as well as rider of the motorcycle. Learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal failed to properly assess the notional income of the deceased and the compensation awarded is excess and exorbitant. Thus, he would pray for allowing the appeal and to modify the award as prayed above. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, which needs no interference. Further, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the Tribunal on appreciation of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 the material on record has rightly came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was more negligent and rightly saddled 90% contributory negligence on the driver of the bus and 10% on the rider of the motorcycle. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court Records, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling contributory negligence of 90% on the driver of the bus and 10% on the rider of the motorcycle? 2) Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 14. Answer to the above points would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident that took place on 22.01.2022 involving KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-06-F-1186 and a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-HF-0568 and the accidental death of Jagadish.K., son of the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The appellant/KSRTC is before this Court questioning the saddling of 90% contributory negligence on the driver of the bus and questioning the quantum of compensation awarded. 15. The appellant/Corporation contended before the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. In support of its claim, it examined driver of the bus as RW1. In his chief-examination, RW1 has stated that he was driving the bus on the left side of the road. So also, he has stated that rider of the offending two-wheeler was proceeding on the left side of the bus in the same direction and he has further stated that both the rider of the motorcycle and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 pillion rider were not wearing helmet. He further stated that a two-wheeler came from the opposite side, due to which, rider of the offending motorcycle took to right side and the right side handle of the motorcycle touched left side body of the bus and both of them fell down. It is an admitted fact that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus as well as rider of the motorcycle. In his cross-examination, the driver of the bus i.e., RW1 has admitted that accident had taken place on the left side of the road. It is also to be noted that Ex.P5-sketch would indicate that the accident on the Bengaluru-Tumakuru Highway had taken place at Arishinakunte on the service road, that too, on the left side. Both the bus and two- wheeler were proceeding in the same direction. RW1 has categorically stated that the two-wheeler was proceeding on the same direction on the left side of the bus. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in arriving at conclusion that there is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 contributory negligence to the extent of 90% on the driver of the bus and 10% on the rider of the motorcycle. 16. The appellant except driver of the bus, who is an interested witness, has not examined any other independent witness. In the above circumstances, the contention of the appellant that both the rider of the motorcycle and driver of the bus equally contributed to the occurrence of the accidents cannot be accepted and accordingly the said contention is rejected. 17. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the material on record and has granted just compensation, which needs no interference. The deceased was aged 24 years and in terms of the income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income for the year 2022 is Rs.15,500/- and accordingly, income of the deceased is notionally assessed at Rs.15,500/- which is proper and correct. The deceased was a bachelor and as - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5105-DB MFA No. 5364 of 2024 such, 50% of the assessed income is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Multiplier of 18 for the age of 24 years is proper and correct and the compensation awarded on consortium as well as loss of estate and funeral expenses are also in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI & OTHERS1. 18. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly, appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157