Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Jayant Banerji, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Bhaskar N Shetty, S/O Narayana Shetty - Appellant
Versus
The Manager B.M.T.C. - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.8635 of 2019
Decided On : 21-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Conventional Heads - Loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses - Reasonable figures for these heads should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years as per settled law (Para 19).
Facts of the case:
A claim petition was filed by the husband and children of a deceased pillion rider who succumbed to fatal injuries after a motorcycle was hit by a bus. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on notional income, disregarding the ITRs produced by the claimants on the grounds that no educational certificates or business licenses were provided to prove the deceased's profession as a teacher running tutorial classes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that ITRs are statutory documents that must be examined for calculating income and cannot be disregarded solely due to the absence of other professional certificates. Since the deceased was self-employed, the average gross annual income from the last three assessment years was used to determine the monthly income. Further, the court held that the conventional heads of compensation were not updated with the requisite 10% escalation.
Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in disregarding the ITRs filed by the claimants; and (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to additional compensation under non-pecuniary heads.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory documents like ITRs provide a reliable basis for income determination and cannot be ignored. For self-employed individuals, the three-year average income from ITRs is the appropriate metric. Compensation under conventional heads must follow prescribed rates and periodic escalation every three years.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.40,54,200/- along with interest at 9% per annum.
For the Appellant :Sri. Raghu R., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. F.S.Dabali., Advocate
JUDGMENT :
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and award dated 28.12.2018, in MVC No.4306/2017, passed by the Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the appellants/claimants in a sum of Rs.13,30,000/-, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellants/claimants.
3. The brief relevant facts are that an accident took place on 01.07.2017, at around 02.30 p.m., which involved the deceased, who was riding as a pillion rider on a Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-ER-5017, being ridden by her brother. The said motorcycle was hit by a BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-9013. It is stated that the offending bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the accident, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Although she was shifted to Panacia Hospital, she succumbed to her injuries in the hospital despite treatment.
4. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) was filed before the learned Tribunal, by the husband and two children of the deceased. It was stated therein that the deceased was running a Tutorial and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000 /- per month.
5. The claim petition was contested by the respondent/BMTC. It was stated that the driver of the bus was not negligent, but the negligence was on the rider of the motorcycle. Thus, it was contended that the claim petition be dismissed.
6. Based on the pleadings set out by the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
“1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Smt.Shakila B. Shetty succumbed to the injuries sustained in vehicular accident alleged to have occurred on 01.07.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-01-F-9013?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or Award?”
7. In order to prove their case, the appellant No.1/claimant No.1, husband of the deceased, was examined as PW-1 and twelve documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P12, which included the FIR (Exhibit-P1), Mahazar (Exhibit-P3), Sketch (Exhibit-P4), IMV Report (Exhibit-P5), Inquest Mazhar (Exhibit-P9) and the charge- sheet (Exhibit-P10). The Income Tax Returns (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITR’) for four assessment years from 2012- 13 to 2016-17 were produced as Exhibit-P11 (collectively). The respondent/BMTC also examined the Driver of the offending bus as RW-1. However, no documents were produced on the behalf of the respondent/BMTC.
8. The learned Tribunal after reviewing the evidence placed it found that the Driver of the respondent/BMTC bus (RW-1) had stated in his evidence that he was waiting at a traffic signal and the rider of the motorcycle came at a high speed and tried to take a right turn. Thus, it was stated that the motorcyclist was negligent. However, in his cross- examination, RW-1, who is the driver of the offending bus, admitted that the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-3892 had stopped in front of the offending vehicle, but denied the accident had taken place in the manner described.
9. The learned Tribunal examined the spot mahazar and sketch, as well as other documents and found that the sketch clearly shows that the offending bus came from the rear side and hit the motorcycle, as well as hit another BMTC Bus, which was parked. Thus, it was held by the learned Tribunal that based on the Police documents as well as the documents filed by the appellants/claimants, the version of the respondent was not believable, and that the accident happened as a result of negligence of the offending bus driver.
10. On the quantum awarded, the learned Tribunal found that although the appellants/claimants stated that the d
