Pedestrian Hit By KSRTC Bus On Footpath: Karnataka HC Rejects Contributory Negligence But Cuts Award To Rs 13.34 Lakh

In brief

The question

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification, including reassessment of the claimant’s age, disability, multiplier and compensation under relevant heads.

The court held

The Court held that the award required modification and allowed both appeals in part.

It also directed

It reduced the total compensation from ₹18,14,060 to ₹13,33,500, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

KSRTC was directed to deposit the modified compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; disbursement and deposit were to follow the Tribunal’s order.

01Facts

On 8 December 2019, B.N. Dasegowda was injured when a KSRTC bus struck him while he was walking near Bommuru Agrahara Village.

p. 3 · pp. 7–8

He sustained several grievous injuries, including head and limb injuries, and was hospitalised for 22 days.

pp. 3, 7–8

The Tribunal awarded him ₹18,14,060, including ₹13,67,520 for loss of future earning capacity, applying a whole-body disability of 74% and multiplier of 11.

pp. 4–5

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement; KSRTC appealed challenging negligence and the quantum awarded.

pp. 3, 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification, including reassessment of the claimant’s age, disability, multiplier and compensation under relevant heads.

p. 6 · pp. 9–11

ii.2. Whether the accident was caused, wholly or partly, by the claimant’s contributory negligence.

pp. 12–13

03Law Applied

The appeals were brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for appeals against awards of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

pp. 3–4

In reassessing compensation, the Court considered the claimant’s age, income, disability and appropriate multiplier in calculating loss of future earning capacity, and assessed compensation under the other heads by reference to the evidence and injuries.

pp. 9–11

The judgment cites no precedent or additional statutory rule governing the assessment.

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹14,000 but found that the claimant was 57 at the time of the accident, based on his Aadhaar card, making multiplier 9 appropriate rather than 11.

p. 10

It reduced the head-injury disability from 56% to 30%, finding the doctor’s assessment excessive in light of the mild changes shown in the brain scan and the claimant’s performance in cross-examination.

pp. 9–10

It added 18% whole-body disability for the fractured limbs, producing total disability of 58%, and recalculated future earning loss at ₹8,76,960 (₹14,000 × 12 × 9 × 58%).

pp. 9–10

It increased pain-and-suffering compensation to ₹80,000, while leaving the other heads unchanged.

pp. 10–11

On negligence, the spot panchanama and sketch placed the accident on the footpath, and KSRTC offered no sufficient evidence of contributory negligence; the Court therefore rejected that defence.

pp. 12–13