The court determined that both parties contributed to the accident, assigning negligence at 40% to the deceased and 60% to the driver, impacting overall compensation.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. The MFA No.6622/2019 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 14.09.2019 passed in MVC No.3304/2018 on the file of the Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (herein after referred to as ‘the tribunal’ for short) consequently dismiss the claim petition of the respondent in MVC No.3304/2018.

2. The MFA No.3575/2021 is filed seeking to set aside, modify and enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The appellant herein in MFA No.6622/2019 is the respondent in MVC No.3304/2018 and the respondent herein are the claimants No.1 to 2 in MVC No.3304/2018.

4. The appellants herein in MFA No.3575/2021 are the respondent in MVC N0.3304/2018 and the respondent herein are the claimants in MVC N0.3304/2018.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-.

On 31.08.2018 at about 9:15 a.m., while the deceased, Sri V. Jagadish, aged about 22 years and employed as a Sales Car Mechanic earning Rs.15,000/- per month, was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-JN- 5352 on Nagavara Ring Road near Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Manyatha Tech Park, the BMTC bus No.KA-57-F-2199 came from behind and hit the motorcycle, causing his death on spot due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioners/claimants claimed Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency.

The respondent–driver of the offending vehicle denied negligence and contended that the bus was driven cautiously and that the deceased, while attempting to overtake from the left, lost control and hit the footpath, resulting in the accident due to his own negligence. Respondent also disputed his age, income, and occupation. However, by judgment and award dated 14.06.2019, the Tribunal held the accident to be one of contributory negligence, fixing 90% negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and 10% on the deceased and assessed the income at Rs.12,000/- plus Rs.4,800/- for future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 18, and awarded Rs.18,14,400/- towards loss of dependency and other heads.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation that the spot mahazar and spot sketch marked at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are, on the face of the record, false and fabricated documents manufactured to suit the convenience of the claimants and do not portray the true facts. The CCTV footage and photographs at Ex.R-3 to R-14 demonstrate that the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeding straight on its correct side of the carriageway and that the rider of the motorcycle, by his own negligent conduct, dashed against the left side footpath and fell; there is no evidential foundation that the bus struck the deceased. Notwithstanding the clear evidentiary position, the Tribunal erroneously attributed 90% negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle.

7. It is contended that the IMV report at Ex.P-5 clearly records absence of damage to the BMTC bus whilst noting damage upon the motorcycle (crash guard and front registration board). If really the bus dashed the motorcycle from behind at speed, as alleged, corresponding damage would have been found on the rear portion of the motorcycle and upon the front of the bus; no such damage is recorded.

8. It is further contended that The Tribunal also failed to properly appreciate the CCTV sequence and eyewitness testimony. The photographs extracted from CCTV footage at Exs.R-12 to R-14 shows that the motorcycle approaching from behind and overtaking the BMTC bus with ample of space. The bus continued to move in a straight line without turning towards the left. This c