Dismissed¶47

The Managing Director v. Smt Maremma @ Mariyamma

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2026MFA/7799/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; MFA No. 7799 of 2022 (MV-D); decided 07.07.2026; Rajesh Rai K, J.; Managing Director, Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation (appellant) v. Smt Maremma @ Mariyamma, Master Ravi, Master Akash, Master Yash (minors represented by their mother) and Smt Bikshamma (claimants/respondents); appeal under S.173(1) MV Act against award in MVC No. 3187/2021 (II Additional Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, MACT Bengaluru, SCCH-13); fatal BMTC bus-pedestrian accident near Corporation Circle; negligence of BMTC bus driver affirmed, negligence of deceased pedestrian rejected; compensation of Rs.34,58,000/- with 6% p.a. interest upheld; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the Tribunal's compensation award was upheld and the appeal dismissed in favour of the claimants. ¶47

The Managing Director Vs Smt Maremma @ Mariyamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Tribunal's compensation award was upheld and the appeal dismissed in favour of the claimants.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the fatal accident near Corporation Circle was caused by the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus or by the negligence of the deceased pedestrian, who allegedly crossed the road amid heavy traffic. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus, who ought to have observed the movement of pedestrians at the Corporation Circle junction and exercised greater caution during peak hours.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The chargesheet laid against the driver of the BMTC (Ex.P8) was not seriously challenged by the BMTC by placing sufficient evidence, supporting the attribution of negligence to the driver.

¶45

Key takeaways

On appreciation of the entire evidence and material produced before it, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the quantum of compensation and it does not require any interference.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The II Additional Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) awarded Rs.34,58,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the widow, three minor sons (represented by their mother) and a further claimant of Mareppa @ Mariyappa, killed in a collision with a BMTC bus near Corporation Circle. BMTC appealed under S.173(1) MV Act, contending that the deceased pedestrian crossed the road in peak hours amid heavy traffic at a point with no zebra crossing although a skywalk existed, and that the compensation awarded was exorbitant. The High Court (Rajesh Rai K, J.), relying on the spot mahazar and spot sketch (Exs.P3 and P4) showing the impact at the extreme right of the junction and on the unchallenged police chargesheet (Ex.P8), held that the driver of the BMTC bus was negligent in failing to observe the movement of the pedestrian at a busy junction during peak hours. Upholding the quantum as correctly assessed, the Court dismissed the appeal.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7799 OF 2022(MV-D)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METRO TRANSPORT CORPORATION SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE -560 027

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR D, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT MAREMMA @ MARIYAMMA W/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MASTER RAVI

¶16

S/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶17

MASTER AKASH

¶18

S/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS

¶19

MASTER YASH

¶20

S/O LATE MAREPPA @ MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS

¶21

SMT BIKSHAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶22

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ALL ARE R/AT: BY THE SIDE OF BBMP LADIES SCHOOL DEVAIAH PARK, SRIRAMPURAM BENGALURU-560 021 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.1210, ARKERE (K) HOUSE NO.1/1 TO 2/130 YADAGIRI -585 321

¶25

SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 & 4 ARE THE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. MAREMMA @ MARIYAMMA

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY B.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3187/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 34,58,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

The BMTC is in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 09.09.2022 passed in MVC.No.3187/2021 awarding total compensation of Rs.34,58,000/- along with

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation, for the accidental death of one Mareppa @ Mariyappa.

¶36

The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. However, learned counsel for the BMTC is in this appeal vehemently contending that the Tribunal has erred in not attributing any negligence on the deceased, who was a pedestrian and because of his negligence the accident had occurred. It is contended that in the peak hours at 4.45 p.m., when the driver of the BMTC bus cautiously driving the bus on the correct side of the road, reached near the BBMP office near Corporation Circle, the deceased pedestrian without caring for heavy traffic tried to cross the road between the number of vehicles and dashed to the right side of the bus and as such, because of his own negligence, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Further, it is contended that the accident had taken place in the middle of the road, where there is no zebra crossing and that even though there was skywalk, the deceased pedestrian crossed the road in the peak hours without taking proper caution. As such, the Tribunal, without taking note of said fact, has erred in attributing negligence on the driver of the BMTC bus. He also contended that the Tribunal has

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

awarded exorbitant compensation under all the heads, which requires to be reduced by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶40

Per contra , learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material on record and the evidence adduced and has rightly awarded the compensation, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record particularly, Exs.P1 to P5, FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch and IMV report.

¶42

It is seen from the spot mahazar and spot sketch - Exs.P3 and P4 respectively that while the deceased pedestrian crossing the road towards Corporation bus stand, the bus came from Hudson Circle Road towards NR Circle Road and in the junction, to the extreme right side, the accident had occurred. It is the duty of the driver of the bus to observe the movement of the pedestrians on the road, that too, in a junction like Corporation Circle and that too, in peak hours, he ought to have been more

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34370 MFA No. 7799 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

cautious. This aspect of the matter has been clarified by the police in the chargesheet - Ex.P8. Admittedly, the chargesheet has been laid against the driver of the BMTC which was not seriously challenged by the BMTC by placing sufficient evidence. Had the driver of the heavy vehicle like bus, who can have the clear view of the road at his seat, exercised due care and observed the movement of pedestrian in a heavy traffic junction in peak hours, he could have easily avoided the accident. In such circumstance, I have no hesitation to hold that the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus.

¶46

As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, on appreciation of entire evidence and material produced before it, has rightly awarded the compensation, which, in my view, does not require any interference.

¶47

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶48

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶49

PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

The Managing Director v. Smt Maremma @ Mariyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Smt Maremma @ Mariyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the Manager

The Branch Manager Vs Sri K S Shivashankara @ Shivashankaraiah

The Divisional Controller Vs Ashok @ Ashoka G

The Commissioner Vs Sri George Philip Kaleekal

Padmashree Vs the Managing Director

Sri H N Rajanna Vs Sri Chandregowda