PRABHAVATHI AND OTHERS VS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3465-3466 OF 2025:

DATE: 28/02/2025

BENCH: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

FACTS:

The case arises from a fatal road accident that occurred on June 6, 2016, involving the deceased, Boobalan, who was traveling on his motorcycle from Krupanidhi Junction towards Madivala. A BMTC bus (registration No. KA-01/F-9555) collided with him, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, resulting in Boobalan’s death on the spot.

The dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, asserting that Boobalan was the sole earning member of the family and was earning Rs. 70,000 per month as an Executive in the Housekeeping Department at Hotel Royal Orchid, Bengaluru. The Tribunal, after assessing his last drawn salary at Rs. 62,725 per month, awarded Rs. 75,97,060 along with 9% interest per annum, holding the bus driver responsible for the accident.

Both parties appealed to the High Court of Karnataka. The claimants argued that the deceased’s income should have been assessed at Rs. 70,000 per month as per bank records, while the respondents contended that the deceased was not a permanent employee, the income determination was excessive, and the accident was not solely due to the bus driver's negligence. The High Court, on October 1, 2020, held both the bus driver and the deceased responsible, apportioning contributory negligence at 75% to the bus driver and 25% to the deceased. It also revised the monthly income to Rs.50,000 and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 77,50,000 with a reduced interest rate of 6% per annum.

Unsatisfied with the contributory negligence assessment, the claimant-appellant has now approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision to attribute 25% negligence to the deceased.

ISSUES:

The main issue in this case involved the wrongful assessment of the contributory negligence of the deceased made by the High Court. 

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's finding of 25% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and restored the Tribunal's conclusion that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus driver. Additionally, the Court reinstated the deceased's monthly income assessment at Rs. 62,725, as determined by the Tribunal, and modified the High Court's compensation award accordingly. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal was upheld.

The Court found that the High Court erred in attributing 25% contributory negligence to the deceased without sufficient evidence. Relying on precedents such as Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, the Court emphasized that, in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, negligence cannot be presumed merely because both vehicles were allegedly at high speed. The Tribunal had rightly examined the evidence, including the Spot Mahazar (Ex. P3), and found no proof of negligent driving by the deceased.

Regarding the income determination, the Court held that the High Court’s assessment of Rs. 50,000 per month was unjustified; particularly when the deceased’s last drawn salary was Rs. 62,725, as evidenced by the pay slip (Ex. P16). Citing Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC and Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court reiterated that in motor accident compensation cases, the standard of proof is based on a preponderance of probability rather than strict criminal trial standards. Consequently, the Tribunal’s income assessment was deemed more appropriate and was reinstated.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the principle that contributory negligence must be established through direct and corroborative evidence rather than mere assumptions based on circumstances such as high speed. By setting aside the High Court’s apportionment of negligence, the Court reaffirmed the Tribunal's conclusion that the accident was solely caused by the BMTC bus driver's rash and negligent driving. This approach aligns with established legal precedents, including Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, which emphasize that negligence cannot be inferred without substantive proof. The ruling reinforces the necessity of a strict evidentiary basis when determining liability in motor accident cases, ensuring that claimants are not unfairly burdened with contributory negligence in the absence of clear proof.

Additionally, the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of the deceased’s assessed income at Rs. 62,725 per month reflects its adherence to principles of fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court criticized the High Court’s arbitrary reduction of the deceased’s earnings to Rs. 50,000, stressing that compensation awards should be based on verifiable records, such as salary slips and bank statements, rather than speculative reductions. By reaffirming the Tribunal’s findings, the Court upheld the preponderance of probability standard in compensation claims, as elaborated in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC and Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. This decision not only ensures just compensation for the victim’s dependents but also highlights the judiciary’s role in preventing unjustified dilution of claims by appellate courts.