[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Shaheda vs The Managing Director on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
MFA No. 9222 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9222 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHAHEDA
W/O LATE SAIFULLA URAISHI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2. SMT UMME UMRA
W/O RAHMATHULLA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
R/AT NO.445 SHAMPUR MAIN ROAD
NEAR RAHMANIYA MASJID
NEW SALT MANDI TANNERY ROAD
BENGALURU NORTH - 05.
3. AYESHA BEGUM
D/O SHAHEEDA BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.1 &3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.6 THIMMAIAH ROAD
Digitally DANA KOTI LANE
signed by SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 51.
NANDINI M S
...APPELLANTS
Location:
HIGH COURT (BY SMT. AMBIKA, ADV., FOR
OF
KARNATAKA SRI MOHD SHERIFF, ADV.)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC, K.H. ROAD
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31/05/2017, PASSED IN MVC
NO.2857/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
MFA No. 9222 of 2018
HC-KAR
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 31.05.2017 passed in MVC
No.2857/2016 by the Court of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge
& MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken
up for final disposal.
3. Smt. Ambika, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in
recording the finding that the deceased has contributed to
the accident in question to the extent of 50% without any
evidence before it. It is submitted that the charge sheet is
filed against the driver of the BMTC bus and the Tribunal
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
has placed reliance on the written complaint placed before
it along with the charge sheet and came to the conclusion
that the deceased has contributed to the accident as the
complainant was not the eye-witness to the incident. He
only enters the spot of accident later in point and took the
injured to the hospital. It is further submitted that the
death summary issued by the Hospital at Ex.P-9 clearly
indicates the reason for admission of the deceased in
hospital. The other documents indicate that the injured
was brought to the hospital and informed that the injuries
were due to the road accident and caused by BMTC bus.
Hence, she seeks to reverse the finding in so far as
contributory negligence is concerned. It is also submitted
that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal
which is on the lower side requires to be re-assessed
appropriately by adding 40% on the head of loss of future
prospects, and each of the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of consortium.
Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Smt. Sohani Holla, learned counsel
for the respondent-Corporation vehemently opposes the
appeal, and submits that the Tribunal considering the
evidence available on record at paragraph nos.17 to 19
has assigned detailed reasons as to why it has come to the
conclusion with regard to contributory negligence. It is
submitted that RW-1 who was the driver of the bus, has
clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased rider
of the motor cycle tried to overtake from the right side of
the bus in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result
caused damage to the bus, fell down and rear wheel of the
bus ran over him, resulting in injuries. It is further
submitted that the oral evidence of RW-1 corroborates
with Ex.P-5 - MVA report which indicates the damage to
the right side of the bus just before the rear wheel. It is
also submitted that the complainant who has informed the
police with regard to the accident, has clearly stated that
the accident was caused due to the negligence of the
deceased - rider of the motor cycle. Hence, she seeks to
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
sustain the finding recorded with regard to contributory
negligence. It is contended that the Tribunal considering
the pleadings and avocation of the deceased, has assessed
the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and awarded just
compensation including the compensation under the head
of love and affection which should be construed and
understood as award of compensation under the head of
loss of consortium, and the claimants/appellant nos.2 & 3
are the married sisters who would not be entitled for any
compensation. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the
respondent and meticulously perused the material
available on record including the Tribunal records.
6. The only point that would arise for
consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal calls for any
interference?"
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
7. The mother and sisters of deceased Shabaz
Quraishi filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.25
lakhs along with interest for the death of Shabaz Quraishi
in the road accident that took place on 03.03.2016. The
records indicate that the deceased was riding the motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA-01-HH-7124 and when he
reached opposite to Darga at Tannery Road, Bengaluru, at
that time, the driver of the BMTC bus bearing registration
No.KA-53-F-268 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed to the motor cycle and caused the
accident. With these assertions, the claim petition was
filed.
8. In order to establish the claim, the mother of
the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and got marked
Exs.P-1 to P-10. The respondent examined RW-1 - driver
of the bus, but did not produce any documentary
evidence. The Tribunal considering the oral and
documentary evidence, recorded the finding that the
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
deceased - rider of the motor cycle has contributed to the
accident to the extent of 50% and accordingly fastened
the liability by awarding total compensation of
Rs.11,37,000/- with 9% interest.
9. In so far as the contentions with regard to
contributory negligence is concerned, admittedly
immediately after the accident, information was furnished
to the jurisdictional police and they have registered the
FIR based on such information. The Tribunal has extracted
the relevant paragraph of the complaint at paragraph
no.18. Perusal of the complaint averments clearly indicate
that the complainant was not present at the time of
accident. He has given the complaint based on hearsay
information received from others and the complainant only
shifted the injured to the hospital. To that extent, his
version in the complaint can be believed.
10. The Tribunal also placed reliance on the
evidence of RW-1 who was the driver of the bus. Perusal
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
of the examination-in-chief of RW-1 would indicate that
the deceased - rider of the motor cycle tried to overtake
the bus from the right side and resulted in the accident.
However, in his cross-examination, which has been
extracted by the Tribunal, clearly indicates that RW-1 has
admitted that he has not seen the deceased - rider of the
motor cycle trying to overtake the bus and hence, he could
not apply the brake, which resulted in the bus moving on
the rider of the motor cycle and caused the accident.
11. The evidence of RW-1 in his examination-in-
chief and cross-examination runs contrary to the each
other. Hence, his evidence cannot be relied fully to come
to the conclusion that the rider of the motor cycle was
negligent and caused the accident.
12. It is not in dispute that the jurisdictional police
after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of
the bus. The charge sheet clearly indicates that the driver
of the bus did not apply the brake, which resulted in
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
rolling over the tyres of the bus on the rider of the motor
cycle resulting in injury and later in his death. The said
charge sheet has not been challenged by the respondent-
Corporation nor was any independent evidence placed
before the Tribunal to disbelieve the charge sheet. It has
to be noticed that the claimants in order to prove the
aspect of negligence, has examined herself as PW-1 based
on the hearsay information. She has deposed that the
accident is caused due to the actionable negligence on the
part of the driver of the BMTC bus and produced the
charge sheet material. If the oral testimony of PW-1 is
corroborated with the charge sheet material, it clearly
indicates that the accident is caused due to the actionable
negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus and there is no
independent evidence available before the Tribunal to
come to the conclusion that the deceased rider of the
motor cycle has contributed to the accident. In the
absence of any such evidence, in my considered view, the
Tribunal has committed a grave error in recording the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
finding that the deceased rider of the motor cycle has
contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%.
Accordingly, the said finding with regard to contributory
negligence is set aside.
13. In so far as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, admittedly the claimants have not produced
any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased.
Hence, the income of the deceased is notionally assessed
at Rs.9,500/- per month placing reliance on the notional
income charge prepared by KSLSA.
14. The deceased at the time of accident was aged
about 23 years. Hence, there should be an addition of
40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of
future prospects. The appropriate multiplier would be 18
and the deceased was a bachelor. Hence, deduction would
be 50% towards personal expenses. Therefore, if the loss
of dependency is re-assessed taking into consideration the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
aforesaid factors, the same would come to Rs.14,36,400/-
(Rs.9,500/- + 40% x 12 x 18 - 50%).
15. The claimants are the mother and sisters of the
deceased. Though it is contended that the sisters are
married and they are residing separately, in my
considered view, even the married sisters are entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of consortium as per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS NANU
RAM & OTEHRS - (2018)18 SCC 130. Hence, each of the
claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
under the head of loss of consortium. Thus, the appellants
would be entitled to modified compensation as under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency 14,36,400/-
Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
Transportation of dead body & funeral 15,000/-
expenses
Medical expenses 1,53,000/-
Total 17,24,400/-
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
Thus, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.17,24,400/- as against
Rs.11,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
16. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
31.05.2017 passed by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.2857/2016, in so far as the finding
with regard to contributory negligence is
concerned, the same is set aside.
c) The impugned judgment and award dated
31.05.2017 passed by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.2857/2016 is modified to an extent
that the appellants-claimants would be entitled
to total compensation of Rs.17,24,400/- as
against Rs.11,33,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16489
HC-KAR
d) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till realisation.
e) The respondent-Insurance Company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
with accrued interest before the Tribunal within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the certified copy of this judgment.
f) The rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit
and release shall remain unaltered.
g) Registry shall transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
h) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
KK
