The Tribunal's findings on negligence of the bus driver and the criteria for calculating compensation were upheld, emphasizing the need for just remuneration as mandated by legal principles governing personal injury claims.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. These appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 7^th January 2022, passed by the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & M.A.C.T. Bengaluru (SCCH-14), (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC.No.1496/2016.

2. MFA.No.4798/2022 is filed by BMTC - owner of the bus (for short `Corporation') and MFA.No.823/2023 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation.

3. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

5. The brief facts of the case are that, on 22.01.2016, at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased Lakkanna and his friend Srinivas were going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-52-J-6275, from Nelamangala towards Tavarekere. The deceased Lakkanna was the rider and Srinivas was the pillion rider. In front of Sondekoppa school, Dasanapura Hobli, both the riders of the motorcycle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the Corporation bearing registration No.KA-01-FA-1884. As a result, both the riders of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing the treatment, Lakkanna succumbed to the injuries on the same day at midnight.

6. It is further contended by the claimants that deceased was working at Electric Polymers Pvt Ltd., and earning a monthly salary of Rs.26,300/-. The claimants being the wife, children and parents of deceased Lakkanna, were dependent on him. With these reasons, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to award compensation of Rs.60 lakhs.

7. The respondent-Corporation in its written statement denied petition averments. It denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the said bus was falsely implicated in the case. Accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

9. Claimants to prove their case, examined six witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and marked 26 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-26. The respondent examined RW-1 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2.

10. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments of both the parties and considering the materials available on record, by the impugned judgment and award, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal awarded the following amount of compensation under different heads :

11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

12. The learned counsel for the Corporation vehemently contended that the bus belonging to the Corporation was falsely implicated in this case and it was not involved in the accident in question. The deceased Lakkanna was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner prior to the accident and in order to overtake another vehicle, he went to wrong side of the road and hit the right rear side of the bus. Hence, alleged accident occurred due to negligence of rider of the motor cycle.

13. Learned counsel further submits that the Corporation has made out its case on the following grounds :

(a) The rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Lakkanna negligently rode his motorcycle and hit the middle body of the bus, due to which, he fell down and sustained head injuries and died, as such, the driver of the bus was not at all negligent in driving the bus;

(b