The court established that the bus driver's negligence caused the accident, setting aside prior contributory negligence attribution to the deceased rider, emphasizing that lack of a driving license does not automatically imply negligence.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 19^th February 2020, passed by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru and MACT, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2114/2019. The claimants filed MFA No.1117/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation and the respondent-corporation filed MFA No.409/2021 challenging the said award on the ground that death was not due to the negligence of the driver of the BMTC bus. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment. Therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for final disposal.

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.03.2019 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased was riding a two wheeler bearing No.KA-03-JF-9480 from Mekhri circle towards Hebbal by observing traffic rules. At that time, the BMTC bus bearing reg.No.KA-01-F-4834 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result deceased fell down and sustained injuries to his head. Immediately he was shifted to Baptist Hospital, but the doctors in the said hospital informed that he was brought dead. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The deceased was aged 18 years and was working as an electrician and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. The claimants are the parents and sister of the deceased and they were depending on the deceased. With these reasons, they filed this claim petition for grant of compensation.

5. The respondent-corporation denied the averments made in the claim petition. It further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was riding the two-wheeler. The deceased, came behind the bus and due to his negligent riding hit the bus and was solely responsible for the accident. The driver of the bus was in no way responsible for the said incident. The petitioners, with the sole intention of making a wrongful gain, have falsely implicated the driver of the bus. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

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

7. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 15 documents, as per Exs.P- 1 to P-15. Respondent examined one witness as RW-1 and marked document as Exs.R-1.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and appreciating the material on record, held that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the rider of the two-wheeler to an extent of 5% and the driver of the bus as 95%. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000 per month, added 40% of the income towards future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18, and deducted 50% towards personal expenses. Including the compensation awarded under the notional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 16,62,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount under the following heads, and held that the claimants are entitled to 95% of the same.

9. I have heard the arguments on both side and perused the material on record.

10. The fact of the accident, the death of Mohammed Shahid Pasha due to the injuries sustained therein, and the place of the accident are not in dispute. The serious dispute is in respect of the issue of rash and negligent driving by the respective drivers of the vehicles involved. It is also not in dispute that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus and that, after investigation, the Investi