The Managing Director, v. Smt. G.Shashi,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO M.F.A. NO. 620 OF 2026 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, DOUBLE ROAD, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. (OWNER OF BMTC BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-57-F-4872)

NOW REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560027. (EARLIER KSRTC HAS BEEN BIFURCATED AND RENAMED AS BMTC). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADV.)

AND:

1. SMT. G. SHASHI, W/O K.R. SHRINIVASA, AGED 63 YEARS

2. MEGHASRI. K.S D/O K.R.SHRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

3. SRI. DARSHAN.K.S. S/O K.R.SHRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

Location: High Court of Karnataka

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT NO.225, 11TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560032. …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS SERVED)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.3057/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-23) PARTLY ALLOWING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.28,53,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The appellant/KSRTC is before this Court questioning judgment and award dated

28.10.2025 in MVC.No.3057/2024 on the file of the XXI Additional Small Cause Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-23) (for short, 'the Tribunal') questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.

¶2The respondents are served and unrepresented.

¶3Brief facts of the case are that, the respondents – wife and children of deceased K.R.Shrinivasa filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of said K.R.Shrinivasa in a road traffic accident that occurred on 22.03.2024 involving BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4872. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 64 years and was a pensioner, getting a sum of Rs.48,011/- p.m., as pension.

¶4In the instant appeal, BMTC is not questioning the manner of accident. However, it is questioning the determination of income and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶5The Tribunal determined the income of the deceased at Rs.48,011/-, the pension amount, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and adapted

multiplier of '7' and awarded total compensation of Rs.26,88,600/-towards the head of 'loss of dependency' and awarded total compensation of Rs.28,53,300/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of the entire award under on the following heads: Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency Rs. 26,88,600/-Towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 Rs. 48,400/-Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-Towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses Rs. 18,150/-Towards loss of filial consortium to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 Rs. 80,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 28,53,300/-

¶6Heard learned counsel Sri.Dabali Fakkirappa Shidramappa for appellant/KSRTC and perused the appeal papers as well as Trial Court Records.

¶7Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error in taking the pension amount of Rs.48,011/- of the deceased as income. Learned counsel would submit that the pension cannot be considered as income of the deceased and as such the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased notionally and assessed the income at Rs.16,500/- p.m., in terms of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. Learned counsel in support of his contention, places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. BIRENDER AND OTHERS (AIR 2020 SC 434).

¶8On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the entire material on record including the Trial Court Records, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the case of the appellant/KSRTC.

¶9The pension is income of the pensioner. Pension is a deferred payment received by the pensioner subsequent to his retirement. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that it is not the income at the hands of the pensioner. The judgment in BIRENDER (supra) would not assist the appellant/KSRTC in any way. In BIRENDER (supra), the Court was considering the question whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also the question as to whether the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules is required to be deducted as a whole or only portion thereof. While considering the question as to whether the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased under 2006 Rules requires to be deducted, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the amount towards family pension cannot be deducted from claim

amount for determination of a just compensation under the Act.

¶10For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly appeal stands rejected.

Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46