Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 19 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Reena (wife of the deceased Nandan Shet) vs. First Respondent – Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and other respondents including New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd (insurer of the Hyundai Santro) and Accenture Technologies (employer of the claimant).
  • Accident occurred on 14‑10‑2005 at 01:20 AM on NH‑48 near Siddeshwara Petrol Bunk, Kunigal, Karnataka. A Hyundai Santro (Reg. KA‑04‑MB‑2073) driven by the deceased Nandan Shet collided with a KSRTC passenger bus (Reg. KA‑01‑F‑7846) driven by R.G. Poojari (RW1).
  • Fatalities: Nandan Shet, his mother‑in‑law Geetha Shet and a family friend Mahesh. The claimant (Reena) survived with grievous injuries.
  • FIR No. 275 of 2005 was lodged; a charge‑sheet was filed. The bus driver was acquitted in Criminal Court No. 1002 of 2005 on the basis of benefit of doubt.
  • Claimant filed three Motor Vehicle Claim (MVC) petitions: MVC 7828 (death of husband, Rs 1 crore 50 lakhs claimed), MVC 7829 (death of mother‑in‑law), and MVC 583 (injury compensation).
  • The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded modest sums: Rs 1,50,000 for loss of consortium (husband), Rs 1,50,000 for loss of estate (mother‑in‑law), and Rs 1,67,000 for injuries.
  • Karnataka High Court enhanced compensation for the husband’s death to Rs 14,35,267 but reduced it by 50% on the ground of contributory negligence, resulting in Rs 7,17,634 plus interest at 6% p.a., payable by KSRTC. Compensation for mother‑in‑law and injuries was reduced.
  • The High Court’s findings on contributory negligence (50% each) and on the insurer’s liability were contested by the appellant.
  • Additional evidence (IA No. 1 of 2024) submitted by the claimant included salary certificates, invoices, purchase orders, bank records, and certificates of the deceased’s engineering degree and software certifications, establishing his actual earnings and future prospects.
  • The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary value of the FIR, charge‑sheet, police statements, and the sketch of the accident scene, concluding that the FIR and charge‑sheet create a prima facie case of negligence against the KSRTC bus driver.
  • The Court held that the High Court erred in attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased and in ignoring the FIR and charge‑sheet.
  • The Court rejected the insurer’s argument that the vehicle was let for “hire and reward” and affirmed the insurer’s liability under the private‑car package policy, noting that the policy permits any licensed driver.
  • The Court allowed the additional evidence to determine a just compensation for loss of estate, considering the deceased’s actual monthly income of Rs 70,000 (derived from invoices and contracts) rather than the notional Rs 20,000.
  • Using the statutory formula (monthly income × 12 = gross annual, less tax, add 40% future prospects, take one‑third, apply multiplier of 17 for age 30), the Court calculated a loss of estate of Rs 50,10,376.
  • Adding loss of spousal consortium (Rs 52,000) and funeral & transportation expenses (Rs 19,500), the total compensation for the death of Nandan Shet was fixed at Rs 50,81,876.
  • The Court also confirmed the High Court’s composition for the mother‑in‑law and injury awards, but modified the apportionment to be exclusively payable by KSRTC.
  • Civil Appeals Nos. 10756 and 10757 were disposed of in accordance with the findings on contributory negligence.
  • Civil Appeals Nos. 10755 and 10758 were allowed; the claimant is awarded Rs 50,81,876 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.
  • No order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Final Outcome

  • Supreme Court set total compensation for the claimant at Rs 50,81,876 (plus 6% annual interest) for loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses arising from the death of her husband Nandan Shet.
  • The Court restored the Tribunal’s finding that the KSRTC bus driver’s rash and negligent driving was the sole cause of the accident, rejecting the High Court’s 50% contributory negligence conclusion.
  • The insurer (New India Assurance) was held liable under the private‑car policy; the claim against KSRTC for the full compensation was affirmed.
  • Civil Appeals 10756 and 10757 were confirmed as per the High Court’s earlier awards, with the apportionment modified to be payable solely by KSRTC.
  • The Court permitted the additional evidence on the deceased’s income to be considered for determining loss of estate.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Court Judgment, Insurance Liability