Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Road Accident Victim's Family

The Supreme Court in its judgment in Prabhavathi & Ors. vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation enhanced the compensation awarded to the dependents of a deceased motorcyclist who was killed in a road accident involving a BMTC bus. The judgment clarifies the principles of contributory negligence, assessment of income, and the correct multiplier method in motor vehicle compensation cases.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a tragic road accident on June 6, 2016, when Boobalan, aged 38 years, was traveling on his motorcycle near Krupanidhi Junction in Bangalore. He was hit by a BMTC bus (KA-01/F-9555), which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Boobalan sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

The deceased was employed as an Executive Housekeeper at Hotel Royal Orchid, Old Airport Road, Bengaluru, and was earning approximately Rs. 70,000 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking Rs. 3 crore in compensation.

Decisions of Lower Courts

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) – December 12, 2017: The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,97,060 with interest at 9% per annum, holding that the accident was entirely due to the bus driver’s negligence.
High Court of Karnataka – October 1, 2020: The High Court reduced the bus driver’s liability to 75% and imposed 25% contributory negligence on the deceased. It also lowered the monthly income assessment to Rs. 50,000 and reduced the interest rate to 6% per annum, awarding Rs. 77,50,000 in total.
Supreme Court – February 28, 2025: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s finding of contributory negligence and reinstated full liability on the BMTC. The Court also corrected the income assessment and recalculated compensation accordingly.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Prabhavathi & Ors.)

The appellants, the deceased’s dependents, contended:

The deceased was not responsible for the accident, and the Tribunal correctly held the bus driver fully liable.
The High Court erred in assuming contributory negligence at 25% without sufficient evidence.
The deceased’s income should have been assessed at Rs. 70,000 per month based on his bank statements.
The High Court improperly reduced the interest rate from 9% to 6%, which was unfair given inflation and financial dependency.

The petitioner’s counsel argued:

“The accident occurred due to the reckless driving of the BMTC bus, and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.”

Respondent’s Arguments (BMTC)

The respondent, BMTC, contended:

The deceased was also negligent as he was speeding, leading to the accident.
The Tribunal’s compensation was excessive and needed downward revision.
The deceased’s income was overstated, and a lower notional income should be applied.

The respondent’s counsel argued:

“The deceased was partially at fault as he was also riding at a high speed. The compensation awarded was excessive and should be reduced.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the principles of negligence and compensation in motor accident cases. Key observations included:

The High Court’s assessment of 25% contributory negligence was erroneous as there was no concrete evidence to support it.
The Tribunal correctly determined that the accident was solely caused by the BMTC bus driver.
The High Court’s decision to reduce the deceased’s income to Rs. 50,000 was unjustified as his last drawn salary was Rs. 62,725 per month.
The interest rate should remain at 9% per annum as per prior legal precedents.

The Court ruled:

“In the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, contributory negligence cannot be presumed. The Tribunal’s findings on negligence and income assessment are upheld.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the High Court’s finding of contributory negligence.
Restored the full liability on the BMTC bus driver.
Enhanced the compensation by recalculating based on the deceased’s actual income and the applicable multiplier.

Revised Compensation Calculation

Heads of Compensation	Amount (Rs.)
Monthly Income	62,725
Annual Income (with 40% future prospects)	10,53,780
Deduction for Personal Expenses (1/4)	7,90,335
Multiplier (15)	1,18,55,025
Loss of Estate	18,150
Funeral Expenses	18,150
Loss of Consortium (for 4 family members)	1,93,600
Total Compensation	1,20,84,925

The total compensation now payable to the claimants is Rs. 1,20,84,925 with interest at 9% per annum.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the importance of fair compensation and the proper application of legal principles in road accident cases:

Courts cannot assume contributory negligence without clear evidence.
The actual income of the deceased must be considered when calculating compensation.
Claimants are entitled to fair interest rates to protect against financial loss.
The burden of proof lies with the party alleging contributory negligence.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that motor accident victims’ families receive just and equitable compensation.

Petitioner Name: Prabhavathi & Ors..
Respondent Name: The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Place Of Incident: Bangalore, Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 28-02-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: prabhavathi-&-ors.-vs-the-managing-directo-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-02-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Road Accident Cases
See all petitions in Compensation Disputes
See all petitions in Negligence Claims
See all petitions in Motor Vehicle Act
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in Judgment by Prashant Kumar Mishra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Accident Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Accident Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Accident Cases Category