Partly allowed

Divisional Controller v. Smt Roopashree

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2026MFA/8081/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court modified the Tribunal's award in a motor accident claim, upholding negligence against BMTC and granting the deceased's father a 7% share in compensation, presuming dependency based on age despite lack of specific evidence.

What did the court decide?

The father of the deceased was awarded a 7% share in the compensation with interest; all appeals were disposed of with the Tribunal's award modified to reflect this apportionment.

Divisional Controller Vs Smt Roopashree — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 343 OF 2023 (MV-D)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8081 OF 2022 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 343/2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. RAMAPPA S/O MURUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, NO.56, KAKABHALU GRAMA, CHITRADURGA - 577 519, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. SATISHCHANDRA R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

SMT. ROOPASHREE W/O LATE RAJANNA M.R., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.75, B BLOCK, SBM LAYOUT, BHOGADI, NEAR ROOPANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 026.

¶17

KUM. GAGANASHREE R. D/O LATE RAJANNA M.R., AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/A NO.75, "B" BLOCK, SBM LAYOUT, BHOGADI, NEAR ROOPANAGAR MYSORE - 570 026.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(AT THE TIME OF FILING MVC PETITION WAS THE MINOR, NOW ATTAINED AGE OF 20 YEARS)

¶22

MASTER SHARATHRAJ R., S/O LATE RAJANNA M.R., AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, R/A NO.75, "B" BLOCK. SBM LAYOUT, BHOGADI. NEAR ROOPANAGAR. MYSORE - 570 026.

¶23

RESPONDENT NO.3 BEING MONOR REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1^ST RESPONDENT SMT. ROOPASHREE.

¶24

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶25

HANUMAKKA W/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.56, KAKABHALU GRAMA, CHITRADURGA - 577 519, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. MAHESH M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. SANGAMESH S., ADVOCATE FOR R5; R3 IS MINOR REP. BY R1)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.883/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWNG THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

IN MFA NO. 8081/2022

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC), CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027,

¶35

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

SMT. ROOPASHREE W/O LATE RAJANNA M.R., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶40

KUM. GAGANASHREE R. S/O LATE RAJANNA M.R., AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶41

MASTER SHARATHRAJ R. S/O LATE RAJANNA M.R., AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

¶42

RESPONDENTS NO.3 IS MINOR RERPESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. ROOPASHREE

¶43

THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO. 75, "B" BLOCK, SBM LAYOUT -BHOGADI, NEAR - ROOPANAGAR, MYSURU - 570 026.

¶44

RAMAPPA S/O MURUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶49

RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT No.56, KAKABHALU GRAMA, BHARAMSAGAR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. MAHESHA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SANGAMESH S.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5; R4 - SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶52

(R3 IS MINOR REP. BY R1)

¶53

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.883/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,20,700/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS ENTIRE REALIZATION.

¶54

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶56

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶57

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 by the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Mysuru in MVC No.883/2018 on the

¶58

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ground that there is no apportionment of share to him in the compensation awarded for the death of his son in a road traffic accident.

¶61

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

¶62

Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Rajanna M.R., the husband of Claimant No.1 and the father of Claimant Nos.2 and 3 contending that the accident occurred on 24.02.2018 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-2694.

¶63

Initially, the parents of the deceased Rajanna M.R. were not parties to the claim petition. Subsequently, they were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the claim petition. Upon appreciation of oral and

¶64

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

documentary evidence, the Tribunal assessed the compensation and awarded the same under different heads as under:

¶67

Sl. No.	Head	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of Dependency (With Future prospectus)	Rs. 18,28,200/-
2	Loss of Estate (Rs.15,000/-X 10%)	Rs.16,500/-
3	Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 X 4)	Rs.1,76,000/-
4	Funeral Expenses	Rs.15,000/-
	Less-Interim compensation	Rs.15,000/-
	Total	Rs.20,20,700/-

¶68

The Tribunal held that the accident occurred

¶69

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus and, consequently, directed BMTC to pay the compensation amount along with interest. However, the Tribunal did not allot any share in the compensation to the father of the deceased, who was Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, on the ground that he failed to produce any material to establish that he was dependent on the income of the deceased.

¶70

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal

¶73

regarding negligence and the consequent fastening of liability on BMTC, the BMTC has preferred MFA No.8081/2022.

¶74

Aggrieved by the denial of any share in the compensation amount and the finding of the Tribunal that he was not a dependent of the deceased, the father of the deceased has preferred MFA No.343/2023.

¶75

Heard the learned counsel for

¶76

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

¶77

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶78

appellant/father of the deceased contended that the father was aged about 74 years as on the date of the death of the deceased and was dependent upon the income and earnings of his son. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any share in the compensation. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the appeal and award an

¶79

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

appropriate share in the compensation to the father of the deceased.

¶82

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the BMTC contended that the deceased was riding his motorcycle on the left side of the BMTC bus and he dashed against the middle portion of the bus, as a result of which he fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus and succumbed to injuries. He submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC bus. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the evidence of the driver who is examined as R.W.1, which, according to him, establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by BMTC.

¶83

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶84

the parties and upon perusal of the judgment and award,

¶85

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

as well as the trial Court records the following points arise

¶89

for consideration:

¶90

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F3694?

¶91

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

¶92

REASONS

¶93

POINT NO.1: The accident occurred on

¶94

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 an FIR has been registered against the driver of the BMTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-57-F-3694.

¶95

The spot mahazar has been drawn and the sketch of the spot of the accident is marked as Ex.P6. Upon perusal of Ex.P6 - sketch indicates that at the time

¶96

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

of the accident, the deceased was riding his motocycle on the left side of the road, while the BMTC bus was proceeding on its right side. The sketch further indicates that the bus had moved towards the extreme left side of the road and dashed to the motorcycle.

¶99

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

¶100

POINT NO.2: The claim petition has been

¶101

filed by the wife and two minor children of the deceased

¶102

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

against BMTC seeking compensation. Subsequently, the father and mother of the deceased have been impleaded as respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Tribunal.

¶105

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not led any evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while assessing the compensation, has not awarded any share in the compensation to the father of the deceased stating that he had not produced any documents to establish that he was dependant on the income of the deceased.

¶106

The records disclose that the age of the father of the deceased was 74 years and mother was 60 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has awarded share in the compensation to the mother even though she has not led any evidence regarding dependency, treating her as dependent of the deceased. Merely because the father is not the legal heir, it cannot be inferred that he was not dependent on the deceased. Considering the age of the father, it is reasonable to presume that he was dependent on the income of the deceased. In the circumstances, I

¶107

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

am of the view that the father of the deceased is also entitled to a share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶110

The Tribunal apportioned the compensation among the wife, two minor children, and the mother of the deceased in the ratio of 50:20:20:10. In view of the finding that the father of the deceased is also a dependent and entitled to a share in the compensation, the apportionment requires to be modified by allocating an appropriate share to him and re-determining the ratio among all the dependents.

¶111

Considering that the wife of the deceased is aged about 40 years and had the responsibility of maintaining two minor children aged about 15 and 12 years respectively, and further considering that the parents of the deceased were also dependent upon his income, I am of the view that re-apportionment of the compensation would be just and proper. Hence, the

¶112

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be apportioned among the wife, two children, mother, and father of the deceased in the ratio of 45:20:20:8:7 respectively. Accordingly, the appellant/father of the deceased is entitled to 7% of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. In view of the above, the following:

¶115

ORDER

¶116

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by BMTC in MFA No.8081/2022 is dismissed .

¶117

ii) Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by father of the deceased in MFA No.343/2023 is allowed-in-part .

¶118

iii) The appellant/father in MFA No.343/2023 is held entitled to 7% of share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and wife of the deceased is entitled to 45%, two minor children are entitled to 20% each and mother of the deceased is entitled to 8% of

¶119

14 -

¶120

NC: 2026:KHC:30509 MFA No. 343 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 8081 of 2022

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

share in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶123

iv) The Judgment and Award dated 07.09.2022 passed in MVC No.883/2018 by the Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Mysuru, stands modified only to the extent of apportionment of compensation.

¶124

v) The amount deposited by BMTC in MFA No.8081/2022 is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.

¶125

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

¶126

vii) The remaining terms and conditions of the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.

¶127

Sd/-

¶128

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶129

DKB/KLV

¶130

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Divisional Controller v. Smt Roopashree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Controller v. Smt Roopashree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sathish Narayanappa Vs the Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd.

Smt. Chaya Vikas Pande, Vs Iffco-Tokio Gen. Ins.Co. Ltd.

M/S. Anniappa Charities Vs K. Natarajan

Mr Felix D Souza Vs Mr Razak

Pranav P v Vs N D Divakara

Sri.Ramappa Vs Smt.Roopashree