Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to a motorcycle rider without supporting evidence.

On 27 March 2019, a bus belonging to NWKRTC collided with a motorcycle on the Ranebennur–Guddada Anaveri road. The motorcycle’s rider, Bharmappa, died, and its pillion passenger, Chandrashekharappa, was seriously injured.

Their respective claim petitions were allowed in part by the MACT, which awarded Chandrashekharappa ₹3,99,950 and Bharmappa’s legal representatives ₹27,57,160, with interest at 9% per annum.

NWKRTC appealed both awards under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, disputing negligence and the amount of compensation.

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal from an award of a Claims Tribunal.

The Court assessed negligence and compensation on the evidence and materials before the Tribunal, including the police records and testimony. The judgment cites no additional statutory provision or precedent; its determination turned on whether NWKRTC’s evidence substantiated its challenges to the Tribunal’s findings and awards.

The Court found that the FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, IMV report and charge sheet supported the finding that the bus driver was negligent.

Although NWKRTC relied on materials including photographs, a CD, a complaint and a sketch, it did not establish what further investigation followed the bus driver’s complaint alleging the motorcycle rider’s negligence.

The bus driver admitted that he had not lodged a police complaint and that he lacked material evidence of the alleged involvement of a Tata Ace vehicle; the evidence of the police inspector also did not establish contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider.

The Court concluded that NWKRTC had not made out grounds to disturb the Tribunal’s awards.

It confirmed the MACT’s judgment and awards, directed that any deposited amount be transmitted to the Tribunal, and disposed of pending applications.