The court emphasized that contributory negligence should reflect greater shared responsibility when both parties are at fault, leading to a modified compensation award that accurately accounts for income deductions.

JUDGMENT :

T.M. NADAF, J.

This appeal is by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [for short, 'the Corporation'] calling in question the judgment and award dated 29.07.2024 in MVC No.1238/2021 passed by the VII Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Tumakuru [for short 'the Tribunal'] on the ground of contributory negligence as well as quantum. The date of the accident and the death of one Krishna Murthy are not in dispute. The dispute in this appeal is with respect to contributory negligence and the quantum of compensation.

2. Heard Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant - Corporation and Sri Mallikarjun B Ryakha, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. M/s ICICI Lombard, though served, remained unrepresented and vide order dated 07.07.2025, notice of this appeal to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

3. Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, taking us through the Judgment and Award, so also the record of the Tribunal, submits that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in the opposite direction and after seeing the Police, took U-turn abruptly, and came into contact with the road barricade and then to the bus. In the circumstances, the deceased has contributed to the accident. The Tribunal though has considered this aspect of the matter, however, has fixed the contributory negligence to the extent of 10%. The Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence of the driver of the bus. As per the spot sketch, the accident has taken place in the middle of the road. The deceased should have been more circumspect while taking the U-turn observing oncoming vehicles.

4. He further submits that as per the Salary Certificate produced at Exhibit- P9 the total gross income is shown at Rs.21,651/-. The Tribunal has considered the entire amount without deducting the permissible deductions available in the salary slip. The deceased was paid Rs.500/- towards washing allowance, Rs.120/- towards canteen allowance, Rs.50/- towards union allowance and professional tax at Rs.200/- per month. The Tribunal has failed to consider these deductions. If these directions are considered, then the income comes down to Rs.21,650/- [21,650 - Rs.870] to Rs.20,780/-. He further submits that the Tribunal has considered 20% as compensation under the conventional heads though the accident occurred in the year 2021, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of 10% under the conventional heads and with these he sought to allow the appeal and interfere with the Judgment and Award.

5. Conversely, Sri Mallikarjun B. Ryakha submits that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased with respect to gross income at Rs.21,651/- [rounded off to Rs.21,650/-] as per the pay slip. The deceased was 34 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has taken 40% towards future prospects and applied the appropriate multiplier 16. As per the police record especially the complaint both the vehicles were moving on the same direction and the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the bus. As per the spot sketch, the accident has occurred in the middle of the road which shows rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. However, the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of RW.1 has observed that the deceased was coming from Gubbi towards Tumakuru without wearing helmet and after seeing the police, the deceased has taken u-turn and came in contact with the bus resulting in the accident. In these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal fastening 10% of contributory negligence is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence of PW