Dismissed

Sri. B. M. Nanjappa v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026MFA/6824/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an appeal against the dismissal of a compensation petition filed by parents of a deceased motorcyclist. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's finding that the deceased rider dashed the BMTC bus from the opposite direction, negating driver negligence, and rejected claims based solely on the filing of a police charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the parents of the deceased against the dismissal of the compensation claim was dismissed; no compensation was awarded.

Sri. B. M. Nanjappa Vs the Managing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6824 OF 2024 (MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B. M. NANJAPPA SO MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS

¶10

SMT ASHWATHAMMA W/O B M NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT BYATHA VILLAGE HESARUGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 088

¶12

&APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SHEKHAR BMTGC KA-42-F-1708 DESAI SHANTHINAGAR DIPO

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

BENGALURU5-560 027

¶18

&RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.3453/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-11 DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

CAV JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 07.02.2023 in MVC No.3453/2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru

¶27

Deceased Somashekar Murthy, S/o Ninjappa met with an accident on 07.05.2022 and his parents filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the petition.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said order, appellants have filed this appeal in which it is contended that the Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus and the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellants proved their case that road repair work was going on and there was mud pile on the road. In order to avoid the mud pile, Somashekara took his motorcycle on the right side. But

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the driver of BMTC bus did not observe the same and dashed him. As such accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC Bus. He further stated that Ex.P6 sketch prepared by Investigating Officer clearly shows that there was mud pile near the place of incident. The distance of the road is 22 feet. In order to avoid the mud pile, he took the vehicle to the right side. But it was not considered by the Tribunal.

¶32

Respondents examined RWs.1 and RW.2 and also produced Exs.R1 to R9. R7/sketch was prepared by RW.2 as per the directions of the officials of the BMTC Corporation. He stated that when he went near the place of incident, the BMTC bus and two wheeler of the deceased were not at the spot. He has not witnessed the incident. The Tribunal considered the said documents erroneously. The complaint is not given by the driver or conductor of the BMTC bus, as such the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident. Investigating Officer is also not examined by the respondent to disprove their contentions. Brother of the deceased gave complaint against the driver of the bus. There is no delay in lodging the complaint. Eyewitness Rangegowda and informant Manjunath gave their statements under 161(3) Cr.P.C and they stated that

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

there was mud pile near the place of incident. The distance of the road is 22 feet. In order to avoid the mud pile, the deceased took his vehicle to right side. But the driver of the BMTC Bus without observing the same dashed the motorcycle of Somashekara Murthy. As such he died on the spot.

¶36

After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the BMTC bus. Ex.P1 to P8 are the relevant documents including FIR, complaint, inquest charge sheet etc. Charge sheet is not challenged by the driver of the bus before appropriate forum as it is the conclusive proof of road traffic accident cases. He further stated that Somashekara Murthy was aged 31 years and was working in Sri Lakshmi Enterprises Ltd earning Rs.12,243/- per month. The accident occurred in the year 2022. He therefore requested compensation on the relevant heads as per the cases in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others² .

¶37

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶38

2 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Heard the arguments of both sides.

¶43

The manner of accident as per the petition is that Somashekara was proceeding on Honda Shine bike bearing registration No.KA-04 KB 5089. At that time, BMTC bus bearing No.KA 42 1708 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed his bike. As a result, he succumbed to the injuries.

¶44

Respondent filed written statement and denied everything and stated that BMTC bus was in its schedule trip from Yelahanka to Yelahanka and it was proceeding near HP Petrol Bunk of Kakolu. At that time, Somashekara came diagonally from the opposite direction in one way road by violating the traffic rules on his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed on the middle front of the BMTC bus. The driver of the bus is not negligent and he is not responsible for the accident. As such, they are not liable to pay the compensation. Their corporation paid Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners on humanitarian grounds.

¶45

Respondent examined RW.1 driver of the bus and

¶46

he stated that while he was driving the bus on the left side of

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the road, Somashekara came on his two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction diagonally from his left side towards extreme right side and dashed at the front bumper of the bus. In the cross-examination, he stated that there was road work from last 4 years. Width of the road is 30 feet and Motor cyclist came from opposite direction. They also examined RW.2/Assistant Traffic Inspector. He stated that after the accident he went near the place of accident, collected CCTV footages and prepared sketch. As per his investigation accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC bus. In the cross-examination, he stated that when he came to know about the accident at about 03.20 p.m. on 07.05.2020, on the same day he went near the place of accident at about 04.30 p.m. By that time two vehicles were not at the spot and he has not witnessed the incident. But he has seen the CCTV footages. The complaint filed before the Police Superintendent is also marked as R.2 and R4 are the photographs pertaining to the CCTV footage and R7 is the sketch prepared by RW2. But, the petitioner9s counsel contended that road repair work was going on and there was a

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

mud pile on the road. In order to avoid the same, he took the vehicle to the right side, but the driver of the BMTC bus dashed against the motor cycle. The police prepared panchanama as per Ex.P4. Ex.P6 is the sketch prepared by them and the mud pile was also shown in the sketch. The Tribunal observed that it was not at the place of accident but it was away from the place of accident and the mud pile has not covered the entire road. It is on the edge of the road. As per the photographs filed by the respondents, bus came on the left side of the road and it even went to the left side of the footpath. Whereas Somashekara came to the edge of the road and dashed the BMTC bus.

¶53

Perusal of the photographs show that the rider of the motor cycle has sufficient place on the road to pass. Even then he came to the extreme right side and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC bus. He took his bus to the extreme left side and there are tyre marks on the extreme left side. There was road repair at the place of the accident. The Tribunal discussed the said evidence, considered the citations referred by the respondent and dismissed the petition.

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

This Court verified the CCTV footages in the laptop and the said footage clearly shows the rider of the motorcycle went towards the bus which is on the extreme left side diagonally and dashed the bus. The photographs of the accidents are also filed and they were seen in the Court.

¶57

The trial Court considered the citation in Manju vs. Mathue K.P. and another (MFA 2829/2009 decided on 03.01.2011) in which it was held that mere filing of charge sheet against the driver of the bus is not a decisive factor on the issue. The rider of the motorcycle crossed the road diagonally, dashed the BMTC bus when it is coming from opposite direction on the extreme left side of the road and died on the spot. As such his brother gave complaint against the driver of the bus. Merely because charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus, it cannot be said that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus.

¶58

The counsel for the appellant contended that Court can consider the contributory negligence of driver of the motorcycle and also driver of the bus and can grant some reasonable compensation as this application is filed by the

¶59

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15763 MFA No. 6824 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

parents. RW2 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. But he verified the CCTV footage and then prepared sketch under Exhibit R7 and R4 are the photographs taken from the CCTV footages.

¶62

The Tribunal rightly considered the entire evidence on record, citations and dismissed the petition. This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the said order. It is the duty of the Court not only to look into the interests of the claimants, but also to protect the public money and false implication of the vehicles as laid down in a citation in (2009) KACJ 500 between Veerappa and Another Vs. Siddappa and Another . It is a clear case of implication of the BMTC bus though there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

¶63

15. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and is

¶64

dismissed.

¶65

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶66

AKC CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81

Sri. B. M. Nanjappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. M. Nanjappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Pooja B S Vs Mr.Karan Patel K L

Kantharaju Vs Pradeep

Smt Netravathi Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Mahadevaswamy Vs Loka Vijaya Raja

Mahadevaswamy N Vs Marishetty

Shri Umashankara Vs Shri Raghu K R