##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12503-DB

MFA No. 6771 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

M.F.A. NO. 6771 OF 2025 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

B.M.T.C., K.H.ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 027

(OWNER AND INSURER OF THE

B.M.T.C BUS NO. KA 57 -F-4209)

NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

B.M.T.C. BANGALORE.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADV.)

AND:

Digitally signed by

1. SMT. M VANITHA

NANJUNDACHARI

W/O. XAVIER .L

Location: HIG H

COURT OF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

KARNATAKA

2. SRI. PUSHPARAJ SERIYAR

S/O. SEVIYAR

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

3. SRI. ANDHONIRAJ

S/O. SEVIYAR

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

4. SRI. AJIT ANANDHARAJ SEVIYAR

S/O. SEVIYAR

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12503-DB

MFA No. 6771 of 2025

HC-KAR

ALL ARE R/AT NO.43,

KARNATAKA CERAMIC ROAD,

NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE,

NAGANATHAPURA,

HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY,

BANGALORE-560 100.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GURUDEVA PRASAD K. T., ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.07.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.

4905/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACJM,

MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-23, AWARDING COMPENSATION

OF RS.47,63,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE

DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

This appeal is filed by the BMTC challenging the judgment

and award dated 03.07.2025 passed in MVC No.4905/2024 by

the XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-23) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The respondents filed a claim petition seeking

compensation on account of the accidental death of Sri. Xavier

L. (deceased), which occurred on 22.06.2024, involving a

motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-R-2686 and a BMTC bus

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12503-DB

MFA No. 6771 of 2025

HC-KAR

bearing Reg.No.KA-57-F-4209. It is pleaded that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the BMTC bus.

2.1 After service of notice, the respondent–Corporation

appeared and filed its written statement denying the averments

made in the claim petition. It is specifically contended that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is

submitted that the deceased, while overtaking the BMTC bus,

attempted to pass between another vehicle, namely a tipper

lorry, and in the process dashed against the said tipper lorry

and thereafter fell under the right rear wheel of the BMTC bus.

It is further submitted that the compensation awarded is on the

higher side.

2.2 Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1. The employer of

the deceased was examined as PW2. In support of their claim,

the claimants marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On behalf of the

Corporation, its driver was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to

Ex.R6 were marked.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12503-DB

MFA No. 6771 of 2025

HC-KAR

2.3 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on

record, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.40,460/- and applied the multiplier of ‘11’, considering the

age of the deceased as 52 years. The Tribunal further awarded

15% towards future prospects and deducted ¼ towards

personal expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.47,63,300/-, including the amounts

awarded under the conventional heads.

3. Sri Nagaraja K., learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, submits that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the deceased. It is specifically contended that the

deceased negligently entered between the bus and the passing

tipper lorry and, as a result, dashed against the tipper lorry and

thereafter fell under the rear wheels of the BMTC bus.

3.1 It is further submitted that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are major

sons of the deceased and are therefore not entitled to

compensation. It is contended that there is no evidence to

establish that c