Sri.Ramappa Vs Smt.Roopashree — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri.Ramappa Vs Smt.Roopashree — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Mixed disposal of two connected appeals: MFA No.8081/2022 filed by BMTC challenging liability is dismissed; MFA No.343/2023 filed by the father of the deceased is allowed. The appellant/father is held entitled to 7% share in the Tribunal's compensation with interest; the wife is entitled to 45%, the two minor children 20% each, and the mother 8%. The amount deposited by BMTC in MFA No.8081/2022 is ordered to be remitted to the Tribunal, and the appellant/father is entitled to release his share with interest.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-3694? +1 more

Court's answer

On Point No.1, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus: the FIR was lodged immediately by the deceased's wife, the spot sketch (Ex.P6) showed the bus coming extremely to the left and dashing the motorcycle, the charge sheet was filed against the driver (R.W.1) who admitted he did not challenge it, and BMTC examined no eye-witnesses or bus inmates to prove otherwise.

Ratio / Principle

On Point No.2, the father of the deceased, aged seventy-four years, is a dependent of the deceased; merely because he produced no documents and is described as not being a legal heir does not mean he was not dependent, and he is therefore entitled to a share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Key takeaways

Re-apportionment of compensation: considering the widow aged forty years, two minor children aged fifteen and twelve years, and the dependent mother and father, the wife, two children, mother and father are entitled to the compensation in the ratio of 45:20:20:8:7 respectively, i.e., the appellant/father receives 7%.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles – Fatal road traffic accident (24.02.2018) involving BMTC bus – Liability upheld: spot sketch Ex.P6 showed the BMTC bus veering to the left and dashing the deceased's motorcycle; charge sheet filed against the driver (R.W.1) who did not challenge it; BMTC examined no eye-witnesses or bus inmates – Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving affirmed; BMTC's appeal against liability dismissed. Dependency – Father of deceased, aged 74 years, held to be a dependent of the deceased despite producing no documents of dependency and despite the Tribunal treating him as not a legal heir; denial of his share set aside. Apportionment – Compensation redistributed among wife (45%), two minor children (20% each), mother (8%) and father (7%) in ratio 45:20:20:8:7; father entitled to release of his 7% share with interest; BMTC's deposit remitted to the Tribunal.

MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

[SRI.RAMAPPA VS. SMT.ROPASHREE AND OTHERS]

19.06.2026

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

MFA No.343/2023 is filed by the father of the deceased who was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal challenging the judgment and award dated 07.09.2022

passed in MVC No.883/2018 passed by the Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Mysore, on the

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ground that he has not given any share in the compensation awarded for the death of his son in a road traffic accident.

MFA No.8081/2022 is filed by the BMTC challenging the liability contending that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased.

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are the claimants before the Tribunal have sought award of compensation for the

2 - MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

death of Rajanna.M.R., the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 in a road traffic accident which took place on 24.02.2018 contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC bearing Regn.No.KA-57-F-2694.

The parents of the deceased Rajanna M.R. earlier not made as party to the claim and subsequently, they were impleaded as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the claim petition. The Tribunal recorded the evidence appreciating the evidence, assessed the compensation and awarded compensation under different heads as under:

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
01.

The Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus and directed BMTC to pay the compensation amount with interest. The Tribunal has not awarded any share to the father of the deceased who was respondent No.2 before

3 - MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

the Tribunal on the ground that, he has not produced any documents to show that he was dependent of the deceased.

Aggrieved by the liability and finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus, the BMTC is in appeal. Aggrieved by not award any share in the compensation amount and finding that the father of deceased is not dependant. Hence, the father of the deceased has filed the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for appellant/respondent No.2/father of the deceased and learned counsel for appellant/BMTC.

Learned counsel for appellant/father of the deceased would contend that the father was aged about 74 years as on the date of the death of the deceased. He was depending on the income and earnings of the deceased. The Tribunal ha erred in not awarding any share in the compensation. With these, he prayed to allow the appeal

4 -

MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

and award share in the compensation to the father of the deceased.

Learned counsel of BMTC would contend that, the deceased was riding his motorcycle on the left side of BMTC bus and he dashed to the middle portion of the bus and as a result, fall down and come under the wheel and died. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC bus. In that regard, the evidence of driver - R.W.1 has been lead which indicates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the deceased. With these he prayed to allow the appeal filed by him.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has perused the judgment and award and trial Court records.

The following points are raised for consideration:

1. Whether the Tribunal has justified the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

5 - MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

driving by the driver of BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-3694?

1. Whether the Tribunal has justified in not awarding any share in the compensation to the father of the deceased?

REASONS

POINT NO.1: The accident on 24.02.2018 at about 7:15 a.m. immediately after the accident, a complaint has been lodged by the wife of the deceased. Based on which, FIR has been registered against the driver of BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-3694.

The spot mahazer has been drawn and sketch of the spot of the accident is at Ex.P6. Upon perusal of Ex.P6 - sketch indicates that at the spot of the accident, the deceased was riding his motocycle on the left side of the road and BMTC bus was on his right side and it comes extremely to the left side and dashed to the motorcycle. R.W.1 is the driver of BMTC bus. The charge sheet has

been field against R.W.1 who is the driver of BMTC bus for rash and negligent driving. R.W.1 in his cross-examination

6 - MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

has admitted that, he is not challenged the charge sheet filed against him. The BMTC has not examined any of the eye witnesses cited in the charge sheet or inmates of the bus in order to establish that the accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent of the driver of BMTC bus. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

POINT NO.2: The claim petition has been filed by the wife and two minor children of the deceased against BMTC. Subsequently, the father and mother of the deceased have been impleaded as respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not lead any evidence. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation and awarded the compensation has not given any share in the compensation to the father of the deceased stating that he has not produced any documents to indicate that he is dependant of the deceased.

7 - MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

The age of the father of the deceased was seventy

four years and mother was sixty years. The Tribunal has awarded share in the compensation to the mother even though she has not lead any evidence considering her as dependent of the deceased. Merely because, the father is not the legal heir, he cannot be said to be not dependent on the deceased. Considering the age of the father is seventy four years, he is definitely dependant of the deceased. Considering the same, the father of the deceased is entitled to share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has held that the wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased are entitled to the compensation in the ratio of 50:20:20:10. Considering the fact now that the father of the deceased is also dependant. He has to be awarded share in the compensation amount and the ratio among them requires to be determined.

Considering that the deceased wife is aged forty years and had two minor children aged fifteen and twelve

8 - MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

years and mother and father of the deceased are dependant of the deceased. Considering the said aspect, wife, two children, mother and father of the deceased are entitled to the compensation in the ratio of 45:20:20:8:7 respectively.

Considering all the above aspects, the

appellant/father of the deceased is entitled to 7% in the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.

In view of the above, the following;

ORDER

1. The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by BMTC in MFA No.8081/2022 is dismissed .

1. The Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by father of the deceased in MFA No.343/2023 is allowed .

1. The appellant in MFA No.343/2023 is held entitled to 7% share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest and wife of the deceased is entitled to 45%, two

9 - MFA NO. 343/2023 (MV - D - CA) Connected Cases: MFA NO. 8081/2022

minor children entitled to 20% each and mother of the deceased is entitled to 8% of share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

1. The amount deposited by BMTC in MFA No.8081/2022 is ordered to remitted to the Tribunal.

1. The appellant in MFA No.343/2023 is entitled to release his share in the compensation with interest.

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51