The Managing Director v. Sri M Jeeva

NC:(2026:KHC:3244( MFA(No.(6339(of(2016( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( STDATED(THIS(THE(21 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026( BEFORE( ( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(C(M(JOSHI( ( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.6339(OF(2016((MV-I)( BETWEEN:(( , THE,MANAGING,DIRECTOR,, BMTC,,K.H.ROAD,

BENGALURU-560,027, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, CHIEF,LAW,OFFICER,

…APPELLANT, (BY,SRI,F.S.DABALI,,ADVOCATE), AND:( , SRI,M.JEEVA,, S/O.S.MUNISWAMY,

AGED,ABOUT,13,YEARS, SINCE,PETITIONER,IS,MINOR, HE,IS,REPRESENTED,BY,,

NEXT,FRIEND,AND,, NATURAL,GUARDIAN,, FATHER,I.E.,SRI,S.MINISWAMY,,

S/O.LATE,SUBRAMANI, Digitallytisigned AGED,ABOUT,46,YEARS,by0NANDINI0R , Location:0HIGH rd R/AT,NO.23/1,,3 ,MAIN,COURT0OF GANDHIGRAMA,KARNATAKA MARUTHI,LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560,021, …RESPONDENT, (BY,SMT.VASUNDHARA,T.P.,FOR,, ,,,,,,,SRI,P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA,,ADVOCATES), , , THIS, MISCELLANEOUS, FIRST, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 173(1), OF, THE, MOTOR, VEHICLES, ACT,, 1988, PRAYING,TO,MODIFY/SET-ASIDE,THE,JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD, DATED, 04.05.2016, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.350/2015, BY, XXI, ADDITIONAL,SMALL,CAUSES,JUDGE,AND,XIX,ACMM,,MEMBER-, MACT,,BENGALURU.,,

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent.

¶2The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 04.05.2016 passed in MVC.No.350/2015 by XXI Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the claimant, who was aged about 12 years, was awarded a compensation of ₹4,26,800/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Road Traffic Accident. The respondent therein, the BMTC has approached this Court in this appeal alleging that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side.

¶3The factual aspect is that on 23.06.2014, at about

3.50 p.m., the claimant was travelling in the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-4880 after attending his classes and while getting down from the bus, the driver did not allow the claimant to get down from the bus by not stopping it, resulting which, the claimant fell down and sustained

injuries and the back wheel of the said bus crushed the left foot of the claimant. He was taken to the Hospital and was inpatient from 23.06.2014 to 15.07.2014 and later, he filed a claim petition before the tribunal.

¶4It was stated that the claimant was studying in Vivekananda School and because of the accident, he could not attend the School and he has suffered pain, loss of academic time. Therefore, he sought for appropriate compensation. The claim petition was opposed by the appellant-BMTC contending that there was negligence on the part of the claimant and therefore, the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Rest of the contentions of the claimant were denied.

¶5The tribunal framed appropriate issues and the guardian of the claimant was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor, who assessed the injury was examined as PW.2.

¶6After hearing the arguments, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for compensation of ₹4,26,800/-under the following heads: Pain & Sufferings ₹ 3,00,000/-Loss of earnings to his parents ₹ 25,000/-Loss of future amenities ₹ 30,000/-Medical expenses ₹ 51,800/-Food, conveyance & Nourishment ₹ 20,000/-

Total ₹ 4,26,800/-

¶7Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent therein-BMTC is before this Court in appeal.

¶8Learned counsel appearing for appellant would submit that the tribunal has applied the yardstick enunciated in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another1 and calculated the compensation amount. He submitted that loss of future amenities could not have been granted by the tribunal, since the lumpsum amount of ₹3,00,000/- includes the said compensation also. He also submits that the negligence should have been attributed to the claimant also.

1 1(2014)14 SCC 396

¶9Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is proper and there is no need for reducing the same. She has submitted that the argument of learned counsel for appellant that a minor has to be attributed with the negligence, do not stand for any reason.

¶10On a careful consideration of the contentions raised, it is evident that after the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun stated supra, there are several other judgments, which say that the quantum fixed by the Apex Court in the said case has to be revisited. Accordingly, in one of the judgments in the case of Sagar vs. Umesh and Tata AIG Insurnace Company 2 this Court has discussed all such judgments and has come to the conclusion that a minor's injury need not be looked at from a different angle and the vulnerability of future of a minor would be taken care by adopting a standard yardstick of the notional income, which is applied for any other adult person, who is unable

2 MFA.No.201430/2023 [DD. 19.06.2025]

to prove the income. Therefore, in the case on hand, admittedly, the claimant is aged 12 years and had there was no such injury, he would have shined more in his academics. The records reveal that the claimant had sustained crush injury of left foot exposing the underlining tendons and muscles and he had underwent skin grafting. PW.2 had assessed the disability of the claimant at 43% to the left lower limb.

¶11It is pertinent to note that if the claimant wanted to be an athlete, definitely the said injury would come in his way and would impair his future career. In that view of the matter, the loss of future amenities to the extent of ₹30,000/- awarded by the tribunal in favour of the claimant, cannot be faulted.

¶12The argument of learned counsel for appellant that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is to be rejected outright, since a minor cannot be attributed of any negligence. A duty was cast upon the driver of the bus, when he is allowing the minor to board or alight from the bus. The driver should be extra cautious

while a minor is a commuter in a bus. Therefore, the argument that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the minor claimant is devoid of any reasoning and semblance of acceptability. Hence, the said argument being absurd, is rejected outright.

¶13For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is bereft of merits and as such, the same is dismissed.

The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal. The original records is also ordered to be transmitted to the tribunal.

Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5