Horse-Cart Owner Awarded ₹3.84 Lakh After Karnataka HC Finds Bus Driver Negligent in Crash

On 18 May 2015, the appellant, who was riding a horse cart, was injured when a NEKRTC bus driven by respondent No. 1 allegedly struck the cart from behind.

He claimed that the accident resulted from the driver’s rash and negligent driving and sought compensation for his injuries and resulting disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding negligence unproved.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court assessed negligence on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities and considered the claimant’s oral testimony together with contemporaneous documents, including the complaint, FIR, spot mahazar and charge sheet.

For compensation, it assessed notional income by reference to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart for the relevant year, and calculated loss of future earning capacity using monthly income, the applicable multiplier and whole-body disability.

The Court considered the claimant’s testimony as a whole, rather than treating in isolation his cross-examination evidence that the horse moved after hearing the bus horn.

That testimony, read with the contemporaneous police records and charge sheet against the driver, supported the claimant’s account on the balance of probabilities; the respondents’ alternative explanation—that the cart fell because the horse was frightened or the cart was overloaded—did not displace that evidence.

For quantum, the Court accepted 17% whole-body disability, assessed monthly income at ₹8,000 using the relevant KSLSA chart, and applied multiplier 13 for the claimant’s age of 48, resulting in ₹2,12,160 for loss of future earning capacity.

It then assessed the remaining heads of compensation.

It allowed the appeal in part, set aside the Tribunal’s dismissal, and awarded total compensation of ₹3,84,077 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until deposit.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks of receiving the judgment.