2026 INSC 889

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10755-10758 OF 2026

REENA

… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD

TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS . … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. The Civil Appeals are directed against the common Judgment dated

10.01.2025 in MFA Nos. 5074, 5075 and 5076 of 2014, and I.A. No. 1 of 2024

in MFA No. 5074 of 2014. The Appellant is the Claimant in the bunch of

Appeals. The details of the Civil Appeals are stated thus:

CLAIM

PETITION

APPEAL BEFORE HC CIVIL APPEAL

MVC No. 7828

of 2005

MFA No. 5074 of 2014

&

I.A. No. 1 of 2024 filed

in MFA No. 5074 of

2014

Civil Appeal No. 10755 of

2026

Civil Appeal No. 10758 of

2026

2

MVC No. 7829

of 2005

MFA No. 5075 of 2014

Civil Appeal No. 10756 of

2026

MVC No. 583

of 2006

MFA No. 5076 of 2014.

Civil Appeal No. 10757 of

2026

2. On 14.10.2005, at 1:20 AM, on NH-48, near Siddeshwara Petrol Bunk,

opposite Sapthagiri Hospital, Kunigal Town, Karnataka, a light motor vehicle,

Hyundai Santro No. KA-04-MB-2073, driven by Nandan Shet, and a heavy

passenger motor vehicle, KA-01-F-7846, driven by Ramalingappa G.

Poojari/RW1, collided. The Claimant was one of the passengers in the

Hyundai Santro. The other passengers were the Claimant’s husband,

Nandan Shet; the Claimant’s mother-in-law, Geetha Shet; and a family

friend, Mahesh. Nandan Shet, Geetha Shet, and Mahesh all died. The

Claimant sustained injuries and was hospitalised. She is surviving the

trauma and loss of family members and a friend. The Claimant’s husband

was aged 30 years and 11 months at the time of the accident. She avers that

her husband was a Mechanical Engineering Graduate, working in the

software field, and was also the Managing Director of his IT company, Geetha

Technologies. The Claimant’s mother-in-law, Late Geetha Shet, was a

homemaker and assisted the deceased, Nandan Shet, in his business. In the

present bunch of Appeals, we are not adverting to the details of Late Mahesh,

as the bunch of Appeals does not deal with the claim for grant of

compensation by his dependents.

3

3. The subject accident was registered as FIR No. 275 of 2005 at the

Kunigal Police Station. A Charge Sheet was filed, and the driver of the Heavy

Passenger Vehicle was tried in CC No. 1002 of 2005 by the Court of the

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Kunigal. On 03.10.2008, the Trial

Court acquitted the driver/RW1 of the heavy passenger motor vehicle by

giving him the benefit of the doubt. The Claimant filed MVC No. 7828 of 2005,

claiming Rupees one crore and fifty lakhs as compensation for the demise of

her husband, Nandan Shet. The Claimant also filed MVC No. 7829 of 2005,

claiming compensation for the demise of her mother-in-law, Geetha Shet.

Lastly, MVC No. 583 of 2006 was also filed, seeking compensation for the

injuries the Claimant sustained and the medical expenses incurred for

treatment and convalescence. The MVCs were independent, but the narrative

in the claim for compensation is that the driver/RW1, in the wee hours on

14.10.2005, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the

collision, accident, and the death of the two family members of the Claimant.

4. The Claimant, an injured passenger travelling in the Santro car,

survived the accident. The Claimant alleged that her husband was in the

prime of his life, healthy, working in the Software field, and running Geetha

Technologies. He was also a partner in Artium Technologies and, given his

educational background, avocation, and stake in two companies, he was

earning Rupees One Lakh to One Lakh Fifty Thousand per month. The

accident, it is alleged, occurred due to RW1’s rash and negligent driving of a

heavy passenger vehicle. The Claimant has rested her claim for

4

compensation on the loss of dependency arising from the deaths of her

husband and mother-in-law, and for medical expenses.

5. The First Respondent, in the reply before the MACT, contended that

the heavy passenger motor vehicle is owned and operated by the Karnataka

State Road Transport Corporation (“KSRTC”). The Corporation itself is the

internal Insurer of the subject vehicle. The Second Respondent is the Insurer

of the Santro car. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the

claim for compensation. On the merits of the matter, the First Respondent

stated that RW1 was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously on the left-

hand side of the road. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving by Nandan Shet, the driver of the Santro. The First Respondent is not

liable for compensation because the accident happened on account of the

exclusive rash and negligent driving of Nandan Shet. The Third Respondent

received notice, remained absent, and was set ex parte before the MACT. The

Second Respondent, the Insurer of Santro car No. KA-04-MB-2073, admits

that it issued a private car package insurance policy for the Santro car for

the period 23.12.2004 to 22.12.2005. The insurance company's objection is

that the insurance was in favour of Accenture Services Private Limited, and

the Santro car was under a financial arrangement with GE -Capital

Transformation Financial Services Limited. It is not clear how Nandan Shet

was driving the vehicle, and the insurance company therefore avers that the

Third Respondent has let the vehicle for “hire and reward”. Therefore, the

liability under the policy is contended to be non-answerable by the insurance

5

company. The Tribunal, keeping in perspective the averments, framed the

following issues in MVC No. 7828 of 2005 for decision:

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that the deceased Nandan

Shet died due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident

on 14.10.2005 at about 1.20 a.m., near Sapthagiri hospital,

opposite to Siddeshwara Petrol bunk, NH-48, Kunigal on

account of rash and negligent driving of KSRTC Bus bearing

Reg.No.KA-01-F-7846 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as

claimed? If so, from whom? .

3. What Order or Award?”

6. The Claimant examined herself as PW1 and marked Exhibits P1 to P20

in MVC No. 7828 of 2005. Similarly, she was examined as PW1 and PW2 and

marked Exhibits P1 to P22 in MVC Nos. 7829 of 2005 and 583 of 2006.

7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral evidence of Claimant/PW1 as

an eyewitness, the registration of the FIR, read with the Charge Sheet in CC

No. 1002 of 2005, and the statement of bus conductor Suresh, who was

admittedly sitting next to RW1 at the time of the accident, recorded that the

accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of a heavy

passenger motor vehicle by RW1. On Issue No. 2, the Tribunal found that the

Claimant was employed as an Associate Manager in M/s . Accenture,

Bangalore, and therefore the death of her husband has not resulted in loss

of dependency to her. The Tribunal, under the head of ‘loss of consortium’

and ‘funeral expenses’, awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Claimant in MVC No.

7828 of 2005. The Tribunal did not independently record a finding on the

liability of the Insurer/Second Respondent on the ground that the accident

had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of RW1.

6

8. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,67,000/- in MVC No. 583 of 2006 and

Rs.1,50,000/- in MVC No. 7829 of 2005. As noted above, the Claimant

carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, which,

through the Impugned Judgment, enhanced the compensation in MFA No.

5074 of 2014 to Rs. 14,35,267/-, but, on account of alleged contributory

negligence of 50%, awarded Rs. 7,17,634/- with interest at 6% per annum

from the date of the Claim Petition till its realisation, payable by the First

Respondent, KSRTC. In contrast, the compensation was reduced in MFA Nos.

5075 and 5076 of 2014. In fine, the compensation for the death of the

husband and mother-in-law, and for the injuries of the Claimant, can be

summarised as follows:

FOR DEATH OF NANDAN SHET/HUSBAND OF THE CLAIMANT:

Sr.

NO.

HEADS MACT HC

1. Loss of

Dependency/Estate

NIL Rs. 13,80,267/-

[Notional income

Rs.20,000/- considering he

was an engineer, adding

future prospects @40%,

applying 1/3

rd

deduction,

and multiplier of16 –

considering age as 30];

2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 40,000/-

3. Funeral and

obsequies expenses

50,000/- Rs.15,000/- (funeral and

transportation expenses)

TOTAL Rs.1,50,000/-

+ interest

@8% p.a.

Rs.14,35,267/-

But considering 50:50

contributory negligence:

Rs.7,17,634/- + interest

@6% p.a.

7

FOR DEATH OF GEETA SHET/MOTHER -IN-LAW OF THE CLAIMANT:

S.

NO.

HEADS MACT HC

1 Loss of

Dependency

NIL NIL

2 Loss of Estate Rs.1,50,000/- NIL

3 Funeral and

obsequies

expenses

15,000/- (towards funeral

and transportation expenses)

TOTAL Rs.1,50,000/-

+ interest

@8% p.a.

Rs. 15,000/- + interest @6%

p.a.

FOR INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE CLAIMANT

S.

NO.

HEADS MACT HC

1 Pain and Agony Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 25,000/-

2 Medical Expenses Rs. 11,000/- Rs. 11,000/-

3 Attendant charges,

food, diet,

nourishment,

conveyance etc.

Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 6,000/-

4 Loss of amenities,

disappointment,

discomfort,

disability etc. on

account of disability

Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 50,000/-

TOTAL Rs.1,67,000/-

+ interest

@8% p.a.

Rs.92,000/- + interest

@6% p.a.

9. Hence, the Civil Appeals.

10. The Appellant-in-Person contends that the Tribunal and the High

Court have determined and awarded frugal compensation to her. The

Appellant argues that apportioning liability between the heavy passenger

8

motor vehicle and the light motor vehicle is illegal, erroneous, and

unsustainable. No liability was fastened on the Insurer. The Impugned

Judgment, by referring to the evidence of PW1 while excluding the FIR

registration and the filing of the Charge Sheet, recorded a finding that the

driver of the Santro car drove the vehicle negligently and that there was

contributory negligence to the extent of fifty per cent in the subject accident.

The High Court’s approach is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the binding

decisions on the evidentiary value of the FIR, Charge Sheet, etc. The High

Court committed a fundamental error in appreciating the rough sketch of the

occurrence by exclusively focusing on the position of the Santro car and

assessing contributory negligence. The oral evidence of the Respondents

discloses that the curve present at the scene of occurrence was ignored. The

Appellant-in-Person invites our attention to the statement of Suresh, the bus

conductor, and, in spite of the absence of contrary evidence or suggestion,

the High Court has denied compensation o n the ground of contributory

negligence. In brief, it is argued that there is no contributory negligence by

the deceased, Nandan Shet, and, alternatively, that it is not 50% as

determined by the High Court. The determination of contributory negligence

ought to be commensurate with the circumstances presented and

established before the court. Adverting to the quantum of compensation, it

is argued that the Tribunal fell into serious error by not granting

compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. The Appellant might be

an earning member, but compensation is payable to her, though not on the

grounds of loss of dependency, but on loss of estate. The High Court awarded

9

compensation under the head ‘loss of estate’, but the quantum granted is

meagre. The Claimant requests the Court to allow I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in MFA

No. 5074 of 2014 filed before the High Court. The following is the list of

documents produced as additional evidence in the said IA:

“(i) Employer Accenture termination letter

(ii) Father's death certificate

(iii) Geetha Technologies Invoices and quotations

(iv) Vijaya Bank Current account cheque of Geetha

Technologies

(v) Proof that Vijaya Bank Current Account of Geeta

Technologies was in the name of Narayan J. Phadye

(vi) Newspaper clip of husband's name change

(vii) Driving License and MIT Engineering College Identity

Card of husband

(viii) Driving licence of mother-in-law

(ix) CHC Kunigal Referral card

(x) Sagar Apollo Physiotherapy advice”

Therefore, the compensation to the Appellant under the head “loss of

estate” be determined taking note of his basic qualifications, additional

qualifications acquired and the invoices and quotations evidencing additional

income to the deceased.

11. With reference to the Civil Appeals filed against the MFA Nos. 5075

and 5076 of 2014 before the High Court, it is argued that the evidence clearly

shows that the deceased mother-in-law was not a homemaker but was

assisting her son, late Nandan Shet, and that reasonable compensation

should have been awarded. Even the actual expenses, leave alone the

reasonable compensation for pain and suffering, have not been paid and

awarded. Further, the Impugned Judgment failed to consider Appellant’s

permanent mental disability resulting from the trauma which subsequently

led to her termination on performance grounds.

10

12. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the First

Respondent, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal and the High Court is just and proper and in a way exceeds what

the Appellant is entitled to in the circumstances of the case. The findings of

fact recorded by the High Court on contributory negligence are unassailable.

The Counsel invites the Court’s attention to a rough sketch marked in MVC

No. 7828 of 2005, which highlights the positions of the Santro car and the

KSRTC heavy vehicle. The driver of the Santro car is responsible for the

accident, but not RW1. The salary has been notionally fixed at Rs. 20,000/-

, and in the circumstances of the case, this notional fixation is also on the

higher side. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Appellant’s claim

of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from the deceased, Nandan

Shet, is unrealistic and untenable. From the averments and documents on

record, the compensation granted is proper and just. The Appellant, being

the daughter-in-law, is not entitled to claim compensation on the ground of

loss of dependency or on any other head. Further, the medical expenses are

reimbursed to the Appellant, as evidenced on record.

13. Learned counsel for the insurance company supports the findings on

the contributory negligence and, on account of the findings of fact, submits

that since there is negligence on the part of the driver of the Santro car, the

insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also argued

that late Nandan Shet is not covered by the insurance policy. Finally, without

prejudice to these two objections, it is contended that the compensation

11

awarded by the High Court is fair and just, and that no case for enhancement

is made out.

14. We have taken note of the submissions and perused the record.

15. The following admitted circumstances are set out before our analysis

of rival contentions. On 14.10.2005, an accident between the heavy and the

light motor vehicle occurred, resulting in the deaths of Nandan Shet, Geetha

Shet and Mahesh. The Claimant in the same accident sustained grievous

injuries. The heavy-vehicle passenger bus is owned and operated by the

KSRTC, which is also the internal Insurer for the vehicle involved in the

accident. The Claimant, at the time of the accident, was working as an

Associate Manager at Accenture Technologies, Bangalore. The Insurance

Policy is the ‘Private Car Package Policy’. The accident occurred during the

currency of the policy issued by the Second Respondent. The Second

Respondent claims exoneration of any liability on the ground that the Santro

car was let for “hire and reward” by the Third Respondent. Therefore, the

Insurer is not obligated to pay compensation. We have perused the record

and observed that this argument has not been put to trial, much less that a

finding is recorded by the Tribunal or the High Court. We also note that the

High Court, in paragraph 58 of the Impugned Judgment, has observed as

follows:

“58. There is no dispute that Santro car bearing Registration

No.KA-04-MB-2073 was insured with New India Assurance

Insurance Company Ltd. which was respondent No. 3 in

M.V.C.No.7916/2005. Though the Tribunal in reasoning

portion held that Insurer is liable, in the operative portion

fastened the liability on the owner of the car which is

unsustainable. The Insurer of the car is liable to pay the

compensation. Therefore, M.F.A. No. 1222/2013 filed by the

12

owner of the car deserves to be allowed.

M.F.A.No.1094/2012 deserves to be allowed in part and

M.F.A.No.2473/2012 is liable to be dismissed. ….”

16. Admittedly, this finding of the High Court is not challenged by the

Second Respondent. Independent of the said omission, the insurance policy

placed on record by the Second Respondent provides that the insured vehicle

can be driven by any person, including the insured, provided that the person

driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not

disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence. It further provides that

the person must hold an effective learner’s licence and must comply with

Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Per contra, the limitation

as to use prohibits entrustment of the subject vehicle for “hire and reward”.

From the record, at the outset, after appreciating the totality of

circumstances, we hold that the Second Respondent’s objections to

exoneration from the subject claim are untenable, and the extent of

contribution by the Second Respondent would depend on the consideration

of contributory negligence and whether the finding recorded by the High

Court is tenable wholly or in part.

17. The averments of negligence or contributory negligence are sketchy.

The First Respondent, as a fact in issue, alleges that the driver of the Santro

led to the accident. The Tribunal, on consideration of the FIR, Charge Sheet,

etc., held as follows:

A. The Tribunal, while differing from the 2011 ruling in MVC No. 7916 of

2005, attributed 100% negligence to the First Respondent’s bus driver.

13

B. It relied on the statements of the Conductor (C. Suresh/Exh. P-8 of

MVC. 7828) which read as follows:

“The driver of the KSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the car which was

coming in the opposite direction. On account of the impact, the

car was dragged to the extreme left side of the road by the

bus to a distance of 50 to 60 feet, crossed the left side

chamber, hit the P.W.D. compound wall and got stationed on

the heap of the mud”.

C. The evidence led in by the First Respondent does not depict that late

Nandan Shet drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, or that his

negligence caused the subject accident.

D. Nothing on record indicates that the accident was caused by Nandan

Shet’s rash and negligent driving of the Santro.

18. Let us now advert to the evidence on both the sides regarding the issue

on Contributory Negligence:

18.1 EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS:

A. The Claimant was examined as PW1 and stated that the accident was

caused solely by the driver of the First Respondent. To support her claim, she

relied on several official documents, including the FIR, complaint, Charge

Sheet, Rough Sketch, Inquest Mahazar, spot Mahazar, post-mortem report,

and a statement from a witness, conductor. She was seated in the rear seat

on the left side of the Santro car and denied sleeping at the time of the

collision. The defence has not suggested to her that the accident occurred due

to rash and negligent driving by the Santro car’s driver. The statement of the

conductor of the First Respondent’s Bus (Exh. P-8) was recorded by the police

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). The

14

conductor stated that the driver of the First Respondent’s bus drove in a rash

and negligent manner, dashing against the car coming from the opposite

direction. The impact caused the bus to drag the car to the extreme left side

of the road for 50 to 60 feet, cross the left-side chamber, hit the PWD

compound wall, and finally come to a halt on a heap of mud. Additionally, the

official police records, namely the FIR and Charge Sheet, were filed exclusively

against the driver of the First Respondent’s Bus.

18.2 EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

A. The driver of the First Respondent’s Bus, Shri R.G. Poojari, was examined

as RW1 and presented a contrasting narrative. The accident occurred because

the driver of the Santro car came from the opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner at extreme speed, moving to the extreme left side of the

road. Although he attempted to file a complaint with the police after the

accident, which was refused, he later admitted during cross-examination that

he had not produced any documents to prove the said refusal. He denied the

suggestion that his own rash and negligent driving caused the accident and

produced the judgment in CC No. 1002 of 2005, which shows that he was

acquitted in the criminal case arising out of the subject accident. He admitted

in cross-examination that the bus conductor, Suresh, was sitting beside him,

knew exactly how the accident occurred, and had given a statement to the

police.

B. Mr. Satish Raju, a Law Officer in KSRTC, was examined as RW2. He

produced certified copies of exhibits from MVC No. 7916 of 2005 (Mahesh’s

Award), an investigator’s report, and four photographs. Stated that the

15

judgment passed in MVC No. 7916 of 2005 held that the drivers of both the

bus and the Santro car were responsible for contributing to the accident

through their rash and negligent driving. During cross -examination, he

admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the accident and had not personally

taken the photographs that he produced, which the Tribunal noted did not

even show the Santro car.

C. Mahadevappa, the Kunigal Depot Manager, was examined as RW3 and

stated that he had taken the photographs of the accident spot. During his

cross-examination, he admitted that when he took those photos, only the bus

was present at the scene because the car had already been moved to the Police

Station.

19. The above evidence has been analysed by the High Court. The findings

of the Impugned Judgment on Contributory Negligence are summarised as

follows:

A. While a police Charge Sheet has presumptive value, it is not conclusive

proof of negligence. Courts and Tribunals are fully permitted to go beyond the

charge sheet and examine other evidence, especially when evidence on record,

such as the bus driver’s honourable acquittal in a criminal court, contradicts

it.

B. The Tribunal erred by confronting the bus driver with a statement made

by the bus conductor. Under Section 162(1) of the CrPC, a statement made to

the police can only be used to contradict the maker of the statement, not a

third party.

16

C. Relying on the scene sketch, it was held that the car was driven to the

extreme right side of the road despite having sufficient space on the left to

avert the collision. Hence, the driver of the Santro car, late Nandan Shet and

the First Respondent bus driver contributed equally, i.e., fifty per cent each,

towards the accident.

20. We preface a few of the well-established precedents in the adjudication

of Motor Vehicle Accident claims:

A. Police investigation records, including the FIR and final Charge-Sheet,

constitute valid, admissible, and reliable prima facie evidence to establish

rash and negligent driving in MACT proceedings. Further, a subsequent

acquittal in a criminal case does not affect the assessment of tortious liability

under the MV Act.

1

B. Criminal proceedings and civil MACT Claim Petitions operate in

entirely distinct legal realms, as the degree of “culpable rashness” required

under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) is significantly

higher than civil negligence under the law of torts. The findings, quashment,

or acquittals in Criminal Court cannot control or dictate the outcome of

MACT proceedings, which must be evaluated independently on civil

standards.

2

C. A site map or accident sketch cannot be read in isolation or used as

the sole basis to record contributory negligence against a deceased driver in

the absence of corroborating ocular evidence. Furthermore, the non-

1

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC

599.

2

Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi & Anr., (2023) 13 SCC 510.

17

examination of all potential witnesses is not fatal to a claim if the existing

record adequately establishes negligence.

3

D. The spot where a lighter vehicle is found lying on a site map post-

accident cannot be assumed to be the spot where the collision occurred, nor

that it was being driven on the wrong side, as a collision with a heavy,

speeding vehicle naturally pushes or drags the smaller vehicle forward. The

Charge Sheet points towards prima facie driver complicity, and site maps

alone cannot establish contributory negligence without direct contra -

evidence.

4

E. Motor accident Claim Petitions under Section 166 of the MV Act must

be adjudicated on the touchstone of “preponderance of probability” rather

than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further, under Section 173 of the MV

Act, the Appellate Court is required to carefully marshal all oral and

documentary evidence before reversing a reasoned MACT award.

5

21. The following principles can be laid out from the above judgments:

A. Charge Sheet creates a prima facie case of negligence.

B. Criminal acquittals do not displace this prima facie civil liability.

C. Scene sketches showing post-impact vehicle positions cannot be used

to infer contributory negligence against smaller vehicles.

3

Sunita & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2020) 13

SCC 486.

4

Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656.

5

Geeta Dubey & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 3779.

18

D. High Courts cannot summarily overturn MACT Awards without meeting

the standard of preponderance of probability in civil cases.

22. Against the above background, this Court first decides whether the

view taken on contributory negligence is correct, and whether the award of

compensation for the demise of the late Nandan Shet is nominal and

represents just and fair compensation.

22.1 The High Court erred in ignoring the FIR and chargesheet, which,

according to binding precedents supra, demonstrate the preponderance of

negligence on one or the other. The said documents are treated as evidence

in the final analysis of negligence regarding the offending vehicle. We do not

wish to replicate the Judgment with citations, except the precedents already

noted. The error apparent, going to the root of the High Court’s finding, is

that it recorded that RW1 was honourably acquitted and the Claimant was

not examined before the Criminal Court. We note, first, that the Criminal

Court has not acquitted RW1 honourably. The acquittal was by extending

the benefit of doubt. That being so, the High Court ought to have appreciated

the oral evidence of PW1 and RW1, and taken note of the First Respondent’s

non-examination of the bus conductor, Suresh. The admissions on the

curves, etc., at the site were ignored in the Impugned Judgment. Negligence

was attributed to late Nandan Shet based on the Santro vehicle’s position on

the topographical sketch. The topographical sketch is not properly

appreciated by the Impugned Judgment. The contact point of the vehicle is

determinative, not the drag marks, which ultimately take the vehicle to the

left-hand side of the bus and to the right-hand side of the Santro. The

19

evidence of RW1 is not credible, and much credence cannot be given to his

evidence, more particularly after RW1 secured acquittal from the Criminal

Court. PW1 was not summoned as a witness in the criminal case. Her non-

examination by the Prosecution in the circumstances of the case ought not

to result in an adverse finding by the High Court. The degree of proof in the

two proceedings, namely the criminal court and the Tribunal, is not the

same. In our considered view, the High Court's finding on contributory

negligence between the vehicles involved is incorrect and warrants our

interference. We restore the finding recorded by the Tribunal, which is apt

and correct in the circumstances of the case. In fine, the accident occurred

due to RW1’s rash and negligent driving.

23. The Claimant has placed additional evidence on record through I.A.

No. 1 of 2024. The High Court rejected the prayer on the ground that the

application was filed at a belated stage. The observation may be correct.

However, the Impugned Judgment failed to notice a cruc ial fact that the

Claimant was married to the deceased, late Nandan Shet, about three

months before the date of the accident. The reason now given is that, due to

shock and the absence of any other person to support or guide her, she could

not immediately gather the documents sought to be relied upon by her.

24. In our view, the High Court ought to have allowed the additional

evidence, at least for the limited purpose of determining the just and fair

compensation to which the Claimant is entitled. Under Order XLI Rule

27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an Appellate Court is

empowered to take additional evidence on record if it requires the

20

documents “to enable it to pronounce judgment” or for “any other

substantial cause.” Further, the MV Act is a beneficial, welfare-oriented

legislation designed to protect accident victims and their families. Section

169 of the MV Act states that Tribunals may follow a summary procedure as

they may deem fit. The documents, such as the Bank of Baroda current

account inquiry record and commercial software invoices, are relevant to

determine the statutory mandate of “just compensation” under Section 168

of the MV Act.

25. The Claimant, in her Affidavit before the High Court, explained the delay

in filing documents, namely, the acute physical and mental shock of the

accident, her subsequent job loss, and the systemic delays in retrieving

dormant bank records after the merger of Vijaya Bank into Bank of Baroda.

The date of the accident is 14.10.2005. Litigation has been pending for 21

years. Proceedings before MACT are summary in nature and, with a view to

avoiding extending the life of litigation, the additional evidence application, in

the peculiar facts and circumstances, we allow the Civil Appeal against the

order in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in MFA No. 5074 of 2014 and receive the additional

evidence.

26. The Claimant has relied upon Exh. P16, a Salary Certificate, and Exh.

P15, a Purchase Order in favour of Geetha Technologies. The additional

evidence would show the bank account details of the deceased, Nandan Shet.

The heads under the payment of compensation by the High Court are in line

with the decisions of this Court, but for a Software Engineer, as opposed to

a Mechanical Engineer, working in the IT/Software Industry, the Salary of

21

Rs. 20,000/- per month is on the lower side. We take note of the

contemporaneous acquisition of the deceased’s certified courses, as well as

the invoices and quotations, to show the additional income that the deceased

earned.

26.1 The deceased held a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) Degree

obtained in 1999 (Exh. P14) and specialised in software certifications in

Oracle and Visual Basic (Exh. P17 and Exh. P18). By March 2001, he had a

fixed monthly Salary of Rs. 7,000 at Magma Solutions (Exh. P16). The Bank

of Baroda Finacle Inquiry Record links the deceased’s CIF ID to the current

account of Geetha Technologies, proving his proprietorship. The

documentary trail from 2003 to 2005 demonstrates his transition from a

salaried employee to an independent IT entrepreneur executing corporate

contracts. This is further corroborated by a May 2003 quotation for Rs.

30,000, an August 2003 invoice for Rs. 50,000, a June 2004 Purchase Order

for Rs. 52,000 (Exh. P15), and a finalised invoice (GT2005/81) for Rs. 28,200

issued on 04.10.2005, just ten days before the accident.

27. Having noted the totality of circumstances and the peculiar facts of the

case, we are unable to accept the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs 1,50,000/-

per month as the deceased’s income while simultaneously limiting it to Rs.

20,000/- per month for a person with the above skills working in Bangalore.

Considering the Claimant’s husband’s professional degree and his years of

software experience, the deceased’s realistic income could be stated at Rs.

70,000/- per month at the time of his death in October 2005.

22

28. To sum up, in Civil Appeal No. 10755 of 2026, filed against MFA No.

5074 of 2014, the compensation is determined as follows:

HEAD OF COMPENSATION FORMULA APPLIED AMOUNT (IN RS.)

Fixed Base Monthly

Income

MACT Exhibits and documents

in I.A.

70,000 per

month

Gross Actual Annual

Income

Rs. 70,000 × 12 8,40,000 per

year

Less: Statutory Tax

Deductions

Income Tax (FY 2005–06 Slabs +

2% Cess) + Professional Tax

(-) 2,08,440

Net Actual Annual

Income

Income at the time of death 6,31,560

Add: Future Prospects +40% of Net Actual Income (+) 2,52,624

Net Effective Annual

Income

Net Actual Income + Future

Prospects

8,84,184

Annual Savings to

Estate

1/3

rd of Net Effective Annual

Income

2,94,728 per

year

Multiplier Applied Factor of 17 for the age of 30

years

17

1. Substantive Loss to

Estate

Rs. 2,94,728 × 17 50,10,376

2. Loss of Spousal

Consortium

Rs. 40,000 base + 30% inflation

adjustment

52,000

3. Funeral &

Transportation

Expenses

Rs. 15,000 base + 30% inflation

adjustment

19,500

TOTAL COMPENSATION Sum of Rows 1, 2, and 3 Rs. 50,81,876

23

29. Civil Appeal Nos. 10756 and 10757 of 2026 are disposed of in the light

of the findings of this Court on the Contributory Negligence. Consequently,

the composition granted by the High Court in the Impugned Judgment in Civil

Appeal Nos. 10756 and 10757 of 2026 is confirmed but the apportionment

referred to in the Impugned Order (v) (b), (c) is modified and is exclusively

payable by K.S.R.T.C.

30. Civil Appeal Nos. 10755 and 10758 of 2026 are allowed. The claimant

is awarded the compensation of Rs.50,81,876 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Eighty One

Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Six) with interest at the rate of 6 per

cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

realisation.

31. Pending Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No

order as to cost.

..……….…………………J.

[S.V.N. BHATTI]

...…………………………J.

[N.V. ANJARIA]

New Delhi;

August 19, 2026.