The Managing Director Vs Smt. Shivakala. T. v.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC No.1572/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-16, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,76,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V ARAVIND)

¶30

Heard Sri B. Bopanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri K.V. Shyama Prasada, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶31

The present appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., assailing the judgment and award dated 26.02.2024 passed in MVC No.1572/2020 by the Court of

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19940-DB MFA No. 7325 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Small Causes and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the <Tribunal=).

¶35

For brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶36

The brief facts are that the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Sri Yeshwant N.R. (deceased) in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.02.2020 at about 4:30 a.m., involving a scooter bearing No.KA-03-AH-2358 and a bus bearing No.TN-30-N-1750. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. It is further stated that the petitioners incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation and funeral ceremonies. It is also stated that the deceased was aged 19 years at the time of the accident and was studying in First PUC.

¶37

3.1 The respondent3Corporation appeared and filed its statement of objections before the Tribunal. It contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. The respondent has also denied the age of the deceased. It is

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19940-DB MFA No. 7325 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

further contended that the death was not on account of the injuries sustained in the accident.

¶41

3.2 In support of their case, claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the respondent, the driver was examined as RW1, and no documents were marked.

¶42

3.3 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and attributed 100% negligence to the said driver.

¶43

3.4 Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,500/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased as 19 years, it applied a multiplier of 18, added 40% towards future prospects, and deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses. In addition, the Tribunal awarded compensation under conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,76,400/-.

¶44

Sri B. Bopanna, learned counsel appearing for the appellant3Corporation, submits that the accident occurred solely

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19940-DB MFA No. 7325 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

due to the negligence of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased was not qualified to ride the motorcycle, as he was not in possession of a valid driving licence. Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred while the deceased was crossing the signal. It is contended that the deceased dashed against the bus, as a result of which he sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same.

¶48

Sri K.V. Shyama Prasada, learned counsel appearing for the respondents3claimants, submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is contended that the deceased was in possession of a driving licence, however, the same could not be produced on account of his death.

¶49

5.1 It is further submitted that once the negligence of the driver of the bus is established, no negligence can be attributed to the deceased. Learned counsel contends that compensation cannot be denied merely on the ground that the deceased was not in possession of a driving licence, unless it is established that the deceased contributed to the accident by driving in a rash and negligent manner.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19940-DB MFA No. 7325 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

5.2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Sri Dinesh Kumar J @ Dinesh J vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others [Civil Appeal No. 22996 of 2017, decided on 15.12.2017] . He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana vs. Surinder Singh [(2008) 12 SCC 436] for the same proposition.

¶53

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶54

There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the vehicles, the age of the deceased, the applicable multiplier, or the percentage of deduction to be made. The only dispute raised in the present appeal pertains to the negligence attributed to the deceased in causing the accident.

¶55

7.1 While determining the issue of negligence, the Tribunal has placed reliance on Ex.P4, namely, the spot sketch. The place of the accident is a four-lane road with a divider and is a junction

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:19940-DB MFA No. 7325 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

connecting the main road, a service road, and two cross roads. As per Ex.P4, traffic signals are also installed at the said junction.

¶60

7.2 Having regard to the nature and location of the accident, it cannot be held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The evidence on record indicates that both the deceased and the bus were proceeding in the same direction and that the deceased dashed against the middle portion of the bus. In view of the manner in which the accident has occurred, and upon consideration of the material on record, we are of the opinion that a portion of the negligence is attributable to the deceased. Accordingly, we assess the contributory negligence of the deceased at 20%.

¶61

7.3 The contention that 100% negligence should be attributed to the deceased on the ground that he was not in possession of a driving licence cannot be accepted. In light of the judgments of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra), mere absence of a driving licence, by itself, does not lead to an inference of negligence unless it is established that the deceased contributed to the accident by

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:19940-DB MFA No. 7325 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

driving in a rash and negligent manner. Accordingly, the said contention urged on behalf of the appellant is rejected.

¶66

7.4 In view of the judgments of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in

¶67

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and ors. [(2017) 16 SCC

¶68

680] , the claimants are entitled to consortium at Rs.40,000/each with an increment of 10% every 3 years. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under the head of consortium is enhanced to Rs. 48,000/- each.

¶69

7.5 The total compensation is accordingly re-assessed and tabulated as under;

¶70

Loss of Dependency : 21,92,400 X 80% = Rs.17,53,920/Loss of Consortium : [40,000 + 8,000(20%)] X 2 = Rs.96,000/-

¶71

Sl No.	Heads of Compensation	Compensation by the Tribunal in Rs.	Compensation by this Court in Rs.
1.	Loss of dependency	21,92,400	17,53,920/-
2.	Loss of Consortium	48,000/-	96,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	18,000/-	18,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses	18,000/-	18,000/-
	Total	22,76,400/-	18,85,920/-
Redu	ced Compensation	3,90,	480/-

¶72

The claimants are entitled to Rs.18,85,920/- as against Rs.21,92,400/- as awarded by the tribunal.

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:19940-DB MFA No. 7325 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Accordingly, the following order;

¶77

(i) The appeal is allowed in-part .

¶78

(ii) The judgment and award judgment and award dated 26.02.2024 in MVC 1572/2020, passed by the Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, is modified.

¶79