Karnataka High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Motorcyclist Killed While Turning Toward Petrol Bunk: Karnataka HC Rejects KSRTC’s Negligence Appeal, Raises Family’s Compensation To ₹27.2 Lakh

CHANDRAVATHIv.THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

Motorcyclist Killed While Turning Toward Petrol Bunk: Karnataka HC Rejects KSRTC’s Negligence Appeal, Raises Family’s Compensation To ₹27.2 Lakh. CHANDRAVATHI vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in crossing the road to reach the petrol bunk, warranting interference with the Tribunal’s finding on liability.

The court held

The Court dismissed KSRTC’s appeal and allowed the claimants’ cross-objection in part.

It also directed

It modified the award to a total of ₹27,20,000, leaving the conventional heads unchanged, and directed KSRTC to deposit the amount with 6% annual interest within eight weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the award according to its apportionment order.

01Facts

On 23 February 2018, Shankar was riding his motorcycle and turning towards a petrol bunk when it collided with a KSRTC bus. He sustained injuries and died while being taken to hospital.

pp. 5–7

His legal representatives sought compensation in MVC No. 326/2018. The Tribunal awarded ₹15,96,500 with 6% annual interest. KSRTC appealed, disputing negligence; the claimants cross-objected, seeking enhanced compensation.

pp. 5–7

The High Court considered the appeals together.

p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in crossing the road to reach the petrol bunk, warranting interference with the Tribunal’s finding on liability.

pp. 6–8

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and the resulting compensation for loss of dependency required enhancement.

pp. 8–9

03Law Applied

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 173(1) of the Act.

pp. 2–4

The Court applied the fatal-accident compensation method reflected in its calculation: annualise the assessed income, deduct one-fourth for the deceased’s personal expenses, add 40% for future prospects, and apply a multiplier of 16 to determine loss of dependency.

p. 9

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory provision as the basis for those calculation components.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

On negligence, the Court relied on the eyewitness evidence of P.W.3, who described the bus and motorcycle approaching from opposite directions and denied that the deceased was helmetless or using a mobile phone. It held that the evidence did not establish negligence by the deceased and dismissed KSRTC’s challenge on that ground.

p. 8

On quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s notional income of ₹7,000 per month inadequate for an accident in 2018 and assessed it at ₹12,500. Applying a one-fourth deduction, 40% future prospects, and multiplier 16, it recalculated loss of dependency at ₹25,20,000.

p. 9

05Holding

The Court dismissed KSRTC’s appeal and allowed the claimants’ cross-objection in part.

pp. 9–11

It modified the award to a total of ₹27,20,000, leaving the conventional heads unchanged, and directed KSRTC to deposit the amount with 6% annual interest within eight weeks.

pp. 9–11

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the award according to its apportionment order.

pp. 9–11
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

CHANDRAVATHIvsTHE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

Karnataka High Court · October 27, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment