THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C DEPOT, BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027. v. SRI. MAHIBUDDIN

SRI. MAHIBUDDIN, S/O ALLAUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.136, SARAIPALYA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 077. (BY SRI. KAILAS SHANKAR P.S., ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C. DEPOT, BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. (BY SRI.F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE) ...RESPONDENT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.5296/2015 ON THE FILE OF XXI A.C.M.M. AND XXIII A.S.C.J, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT

#1. These two appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 20.02.2017 passed in MVC No.5296/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru1. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR

#2. Although the above appeals are listed at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels the above appeals are finally heard on merits.

#3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

#4. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that on 21.11.2015 at about 8.30 p.m., when the deceased Sabihuddin was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HQ-5953 on Thanisandra Main Road from Thanisandra towards Nagavara junction, a B.M.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.KA-57-F-0589 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motor cycle, which the deceased was riding causing the accident in question, wherein the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, the father of the deceased instituted claim petition MVC No.5296/2015 against the B.M.T.C.2 The Tribunal by 2 hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR its judgment and award dated 20.02.2017 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,21,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, Corporation has MFA No.3596/2017 and the claimant has preferred MFA No.1580/2018.

#5. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri. F.S.Dabali, appearing for the Corporation and learned counsel Sri Kailas Shankar P.S. appearing for claimant.

#6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the Corporation that the deceased was also negligent in causing the accident in question. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

#7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimant contends that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the compensation awarded on the other heads also requires to be enhanced. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR

#8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is just and proper? ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced? Re.question(i):

#9. It is forthcoming from the award of the Tribunal that while considering the aspect of negligence the Tribunal has noticed that the Corporation has taken the contention that the deceased himself was negligent in causing the accident in question. However, it is further noticed that the Corporation has not produced any documents and nor examined any witnesses in support of its case. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR

#10. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that even in the cross-examination of PW.1 no admission is forthcoming with regard to the aspect of negligence.

#11. It is clear that although the Corporation has taken specific defence with regard to the negligence it has not examined any witness.

#12. In view of the aforementioned, the Corporation has failed in demonstrating that finding on negligence recorded by the Tribunal is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Reg.question No.(ii):

#13. The age of the deceased was 23 years and the appropriate multiplier is '18' as rightly assessed by the Tribunal.

#14. Although it was averred that deceased was doing business and earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR per month, since no documents have been produced to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- p.m. However, having regard to the date of the accident, it is just and proper that the notional income of the deceased be re-assessed at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

#15. Having regard judgment of Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi3 40% of the income is required to be added towards the future prospects. The deceased is a bachelor. Hence, 50% of the income is required to be deduced towards personal expenses. Hence, the loss of dependency is re-assessed at (Rs.9000 + 40% - 50%x12x18) = Rs.13,60,800/-.

#16. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others3 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR Alias Chuhru Ram and others4 it is just and proper that the compensation of Rs.40,000/- be awarded towards loss of consortium including 10% increment. Hence, a sum of Rs.44,000/- is awarded towards the same. Compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is reassessed at Rs.16,500/- each.

#17. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi ought not to be followed while awarding compensation towards loss of Consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, having regard to the fact that the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and as on the date of determination of the compensation the same being the prevailing law, it is just and proper that the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case be followed. 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR

#18. Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows: Sl. No.

#4. Heads Funeral transportation expenses Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) 25,000.00 16,500.00 Loss affection 1,00,000.00 44,000.00 Loss of estate - 16,500.00 Loss of dependency 12,96,000.00 13,60,800.00 Total 14,21,000.00 14,37,800.00

#19. Hence, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation Rs.16,800/- (Rs.14,37,800/- – Rs.14,21,000/-).

#20. Learned counsel for the Corporation contends that the interest of 8% awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. However, taking judicial notice of the interest for fixed deposit it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 7% p.a., on the compensation as reassessed by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR this Court. The question No.(ii) is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

#21. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i) Both the appeals are allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 20.02.2017 passed in MVC No.5296/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru, is modified to an extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. iii) The claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,37,800/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation; iv) Pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2017 passed in MFA No.3596/2017, the Corporation has deposited the entire amount before Tribunal. Hence, balance amount along with accrued interest to be deposited by the Corporation within four weeks. In the event of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19996 MFA No. 3596 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1580 of 2018 HC-KAR any excess amount having been deposited, the Corporation shall be entitled for refund of the same. *iv.1)The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA No.3596/2017 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. v) The apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be as per the award of the Tribunal. vi) Having regard to the order dated 11.6.2025 passed in MFA No.1580/2018 the claimant will not be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount the delayed period in MFA No.1580/2018. vii) Registry to draw the modified decree accordingly. viii) Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. (ix) No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 * Corrected vide Court order dated.11.07.2025