Karnataka High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

A bare claim of suicide cannot rebut negligence supported by the accident investigation.

THE MANAGING DIRETOR vs SMT REDDAMMA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 08, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A bare claim of suicide cannot rebut negligence supported by the accident investigation.. THE MANAGING DIRETOR vs SMT REDDAMMA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Srinivasa died in a road accident on 8 March 2022 involving a KSRTC bus.

Source reference: no citation

His family claimed compensation, alleging that the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident.

Source reference: no citation

The Tribunal accepted that claim and awarded the respondents ₹18,21,104 with interest at 6% per annum.

Source reference: p. 3–4

KSRTC appealed, contending that Srinivasa had come under the bus to commit suicide and disputing the deceased’s age as assessed by the Tribunal.

Source reference: p. 4–5

The claimants maintained that the police investigation and charge-sheet supported their case and that the award was correct.

Source reference: p. 5–6
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that the accident resulting in Srinivasa’s death was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver.

Source reference: p. 4–7

2. Whether the deceased’s age affected the applicable multiplier or the compensation awarded.

Source reference: p. 7

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award warranted interference in the appeal.

Source reference: p. 7–8
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Source reference: p. 2

The judgment also records that the police filed a charge-sheet against the bus driver under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Source reference: p. 5–6

For the compensation calculation, the Court applied a multiplier of 13 for the deceased’s age group of 46–50 years.

Source reference: p. 7
04

Reasoning

The Court upheld the negligence finding because the deceased’s son filed a complaint on the day of the accident, the police investigation resulted in a charge-sheet against the driver, and the driver admitted that he had produced no documents establishing suicide.

Source reference: p. 6–7

KSRTC also did not examine any bus passenger or the investigating officer to support its account; the driver had not challenged the charge-sheet.

Source reference: p. 6–7

As to age, the claim petition stated that Srinivasa was 48, and his Aadhaar card indicated a birth year of 1974.

Source reference: p. 7

The Court held that the Tribunal’s assessment of 46 did not affect the result because both ages fell within the 46–50 age group, attracting multiplier 13.

Source reference: p. 7

KSRTC had not otherwise challenged the compensation calculation.

Source reference: p. 7
05

Holding

The Court answered the negligence issue in favour of the claimants and held that the age discrepancy did not alter the compensation.

It dismissed KSRTC’s appeal, leaving the Tribunal’s award of ₹18,21,104 with interest at 6% per annum undisturbed.

Source reference: p. 8
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Indian Penal Code, 18601

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

THE MANAGING DIRETORvsSMT REDDAMMA

Karnataka High Court · October 08, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment