Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision that apportioned 25% contributory negligence to the deceased in a motor accident claim. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the High Court's finding and restored the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) determination that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the BMTC bus driver. The Court also reassessed the compensation, modifying the High Court's calculation and awarding an enhanced amount.

On June 6, 2016, the deceased, Boobalan, aged 38 years, was traveling on his motorcycle from Krupanidhi Junction towards Madivala in Bengaluru when a BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA-01/F-9555 collided with him. The accident resulted in his death on the spot due to grievous injuries sustained. His dependents filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), contending that he was the sole earning member of the family and was working as an Executive in the Housekeeping Department at Hotel Royal Orchid, Old Airport Road, Bengaluru, earning up to Rs. 70,000 per month.

The MACT, in its order dated December 12, 2017, concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus driver. Based on the deceased’s last drawn salary of Rs. 62,725 per month, the MACT awarded a total compensation of Rs. 75,97,060, with interest at 9% per annum.

Both parties filed appeals before the Karnataka High Court. The appellants (claimants) argued that the MACT incorrectly determined the deceased’s income as Rs. 62,725 per month, whereas the bank statement (Ex. P.21) indicated an income of Rs. 70,000 per month. The respondent (BMTC) challenged the award on multiple grounds, contending that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver, that the deceased's employment was not permanent, and that the interest rate of 9% was excessive.

The Karnataka High Court, by order dated October 1, 2020, assessed contributory negligence at 25% on the deceased and 75% on the BMTC bus driver. The High Court concluded that both vehicles were being driven at high speed, leading to the accident. The High Court also reduced the assessed monthly income to Rs. 50,000 per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 77,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

The claimants then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred in attributing contributory negligence to the deceased and wrongly assessed his income at Rs. 50,000 per month, contrary to documentary evidence.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence and disagreed with the High Court’s assessment of contributory negligence. It noted that the MACT had thoroughly examined the case and found no sufficient evidence to attribute negligence to the deceased. The judgment stated:

“We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue.”

The Court examined the Spot Mahazar (Ex. P.3) and the oral evidence of P.W.1, concluding that there was no basis to hold the deceased responsible for the accident. The Court further observed:

“The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P.3 Spot Mahazar, came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle.”

The Court relied on Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjumamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166 and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 339, which held that in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, contributory negligence cannot be assumed solely on the basis of speed. The Court stated:

“On an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.”

The claimants also challenged the High Court’s determination of income at Rs. 50,000 per month, arguing that the Tribunal had correctly assessed it at Rs. 62,725 per month based on Ex. P.16 (Pay Slip). The Supreme Court held that reducing the income to Rs. 50,000 per month was unjustified.

The Court referred to Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 468, which established that strict rules of evidence do not apply to motor accident compensation cases. The Court quoted:

“It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties.”

The Supreme Court also referred to Rajwati alias Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699), stating:

“It is well settled that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair compensation.”

Based on the settled legal principles and the documentary evidence, the Supreme Court restored the income assessment of Rs. 62,725 per month and recalculated the compensation.

The Supreme Court determined the revised compensation by considering the deceased’s income, future prospects, applicable deductions, and statutory benefits. The revised calculation is as follows:

The deceased’s monthly income was assessed at Rs. 62,725, leading to an annual income of Rs. 7,52,700. Considering future prospects, an additional 40 percent enhancement was applied, increasing the amount to Rs. 10,53,780. A one-fourth deduction for personal expenses resulted in a revised annual income of Rs. 7,90,335. Applying a multiplier of 15, the compensation for loss of dependency was determined to be Rs. 1,18,55,025.

In addition to the loss of dependency, the Court awarded Rs. 18,150 towards loss of estate, Rs. 18,150 for funeral expenses, and Rs. 1,93,600 for loss of consortium.

The total compensation awarded to the claimants amounted to Rs. 1,20,84,925.

The revised amount significantly increased the compensation from Rs. 77,50,000 awarded by the High Court to Rs. 1,20,84,925.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the finding of contributory negligence, and enhanced the compensation. The Court restored the Tribunal’s conclusion that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the BMTC bus driver. The judgment directed that interest be paid at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.

Case Title: Prabhavathi & Ors. vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 293

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3465-3466 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

[Read/Download order]