The Supreme Court has set aside the finding of 50% contributory negligence against the driver of a Santro car in a 2005 road accident and enhanced compensation payable to the claimant to Rs 50,81,876.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the High Court of Karnataka had incorrectly relied on the post-accident position of the car in the site sketch to attribute equal negligence to both drivers. The Court restored the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a collision that took place at about 1:20 a.m. on October 14, 2005, on NH-48 near Siddeshwara Petrol Bunk in Kunigal, Karnataka. A Hyundai Santro carrying the claimant and three other passengers collided with a KSRTC heavy passenger vehicle.
The claimant survived but suffered injuries. Her husband Nandan Shet, mother-in-law Geetha Shet and family friend Mahesh died in the accident. The claimant subsequently filed separate compensation claims for the death of her husband, the death of her mother-in-law and the injuries suffered by her.
The Tribunal had attributed the accident to the KSRTC bus driver and awarded compensation in the three claims. The High Court later enhanced the compensation relating to the death of Nandan Shet but imposed 50% contributory negligence, reducing the amount payable to the claimant to Rs 7,17,634 with interest.
Supreme Court Examines Contributory Negligence
The Supreme Court closely examined the FIR, charge sheet, witness statements and the accident sketch. It noted that the bus conductor, who was sitting beside the bus driver, had given a statement to the police that the KSRTC bus had been driven rashly and had dragged the Santro for around 50 to 60 feet after the collision.
The Court also considered the bus driver’s acquittal in the criminal case. It clarified that the acquittal was on the benefit of doubt and did not determine the civil compensation claim.
The Bench observed that criminal proceedings and motor accident compensation proceedings operate on different standards of proof. A criminal court’s conclusion therefore cannot by itself determine civil liability in a motor accident claim.
The Court specifically found that the High Court had attributed negligence to the Santro driver mainly from the vehicle’s position shown in the topographical sketch. It held that the contact point of the vehicles was more relevant than the subsequent drag marks. The Court therefore concluded that the High Court’s finding of 50% contributory negligence was incorrect.
Compensation Reassessed
The Supreme Court also reconsidered the income of the claimant’s deceased husband. The High Court had assessed his monthly income at Rs 20,000. The Supreme Court found this figure to be low considering his engineering degree, software certifications, experience and documentary evidence showing his involvement in IT-related business activities.
After examining salary records, bank records, invoices and purchase orders, the Court assessed his realistic monthly income at Rs 70,000 as of October 2005.
Using the applicable deductions, future prospects and a multiplier of 17, the Court calculated substantive loss to the estate at Rs 50,10,376. It further awarded Rs 52,000 towards spousal consortium and Rs 19,500 towards funeral and transportation expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs 50,81,876.
The Court also allowed the claimant’s application for additional evidence, observing that the documents were relevant to determining just compensation and that the long delay had to be considered in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 10755 and 10758 of 2026 and awarded the claimant Rs 50,81,876 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.
Civil Appeal Nos. 10756 and 10757 of 2026 were disposed of by confirming the compensation granted by the High Court while modifying the apportionment so that the liability would be payable exclusively by KSRTC.
The Court also disposed of the pending applications and made no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Reena v. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 10755-10758 of 2026
Judge: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Decision Date: August 19, 2026
 and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Constables-300x169.webp)
