IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6339 OF 2016 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC, K.H.ROAD BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SRI F.S.DABALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI M.JEEVA S/O.S.MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE PETITIONER IS MINOR HE IS REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER I.E. SRI S.MINISWAMY S/O.LATE SUBRAMANI Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS by NANDINI R Location: HIGH R/AT NO.23/1, 3^rd MAIN COURT OF GANDHIGRAMA KARNATAKA MARUTHI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 021 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.VASUNDHARA T.P. FOR SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATES)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY/SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.350/2015 BY XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER-

MACT, BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent.

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 04.05.2016 passed in MVC.No.350/2015 by XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the claimant, who was aged about 12 years, was awarded a compensation of ₹4,26,800/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Road Traffic Accident. The respondent therein, the BMTC has approached this Court in this appeal alleging that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side.

3. The factual aspect is that on 23.06.2014, at about

3.50 p.m., the claimant was travelling in the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-4880 after attending his classes and while getting down from the bus, the driver did not allow the claimant to get down from the bus by not stopping it, resulting which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries and the back wheel of the said bus crushed the left foot of the claimant. He was taken to the Hospital and was inpatient from 23.06.2014 to 15.07.2014 and later, he filed a claim petition before the tribunal.

4. It was stated that the claimant was studying in Vivekananda School and because of the accident, he could not attend the School and he has suffered pain, loss of academic time. Therefore, he sought for appropriate compensation. The claim petition was opposed by the appellant-BMTC contending that there was negligence on the part of the claimant and therefore, the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Rest of the contentions of the claimant were denied.

5. The tribunal framed appropriate issues and the guardian of the claimant was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor, who assessed the injury was examined as PW.2.

6. After hearing the arguments, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of ₹4,26,800/- under the following heads:

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent therein-BMTC is before this Court in appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for appellant would submit that the tribunal has applied the yardstick enunciated in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another¹ and calculated the compensation amount. He submitted that loss of future amenities could not have been granted by the tribunal, since the lumpsum amount of ₹3,00,000/- includes the said compensation also. He also submits that the negligence should have been attributed to the claimant also.

1 ¹(2014)14 SCC 396

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is proper and there is no need for red