Supreme Court Restores Sole Liability on Bus Driver and Enhances Compensation in Fatal Motor Accident

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard appeals against a Karnataka High Court order that apportioned contributory negligence between a deceased motorcyclist and a BMTC bus driver and reduced the claimant's assessed income. The appeals challenged the High Court's finding of 25% contributory negligence on the deceased and its assessment of monthly income.

The Court allowed the civil appeals, held that there was insufficient evidence to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased, affirmed the tribunal's assessment of the deceased's last drawn salary, and recalculated the compensation substantially upward. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus alone. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh and Ors. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed." The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of the deceased's monthly income at Rs.62,725 and applied the multiplier and heads of damages following established principles, arriving at a revised total compensation of Rs.1,20,84,925; interest was recorded as payable "as awarded by the Tribunal."

Background On 6 June 2016, Boobalan (aged 38) rode his motorcycle from Krupanidhi Junction towards Madivala when a BMTC bus (Regn. KA-01/F-9555) collided with him. The deceased died on the spot. Dependents filed a claim petition before the MACT seeking Rs.3 crore, stating that the deceased worked as an Executive in the Housekeeping Department of Hotel Royal Orchid and earned up to Rs.70,000 per month. The Tribunal, after examining pay slips and other evidence, recorded the last drawn salary as Rs.62,725 per month, held that the bus driver acted rashly and negligently, and awarded Rs.75,97,060 with interest at 9% per annum.

Both parties appealed to the High Court. The appellants sought enhancement on the basis of bank statements and higher asserted income; the respondent challenged liability and contended that the deceased also drove negligently and that the interest rate awarded was excessive. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, assessed contributory negligence at 75% on the bus driver and 25% on the deceased, reduced the assessed monthly income to Rs.50,000, and enhanced the award marginally to Rs.77,50,000 at 6% interest.

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, spot mahazar (Ex.P3), oral testimony and documentary material, and observed that the High Court erred in imputing contributory negligence without direct or corroborative evidence. The Court reiterated the settled principle in motor accident claims that the standard of proof is the "preponderance of probability" and not the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt", quoting that the Tribunal is to award "just and fair compensation" once the occurrence of the accident by reason of negligence is established. The Court followed precedent including Jiju Kuruvila and Kumari Kiran on contributory negligence and applied the Pranay Sethi methodology for calculating future prospects and multiplier. As a result, the Civil Appeals were allowed, the MACT award dated 12 December 2017 (as modified by the High Court) stood modified to the extent indicated, interest awarded by the Tribunal was sustained, and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 293 (Civil Appeal Nos. 3465-3466 of 2025; Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 21450-21451/2023) Case Title: Prabhavathi & Ors. v. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]