Reena vs. The Managing Director, KSRTC

This case arose from a tragic road accident in 2005, where a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus collided with a car. The crash killed Nandan Shet (a software engineer and entrepreneur), his mother, and a friend, while his wife, Reena, survived with serious injuries. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal blamed the bus driver entirely. However, the High Court cut the compensation by 50%, claiming Nandan was also responsible ('contributory negligence') based on a rough site map showing the car's final position. It also refused to accept new documents showing Nandan's actual income, stating they were submitted too late. The Supreme Court corrected these errors. It ruled that a site map showing where a smaller car stopped after being hit by a heavy bus cannot prove the car driver's fault, because a large vehicle naturally drags a smaller one. The Court emphasized that civil accident claims are decided on probabilities, and a driver's acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically clear them of civil liability. Furthermore, the Court allowed Reena to submit new financial documents, noting that as a newlywed in deep shock and trauma, she could not collect them earlier. Based on proof of her husband's qualifications and business, the Court increased his estimated income from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 70,000 per month. It held KSRTC 100% liable and awarded Reena Rs. 50.81 Lakhs with 6% interest.

In 2005, a newly married software engineer, Nandan Shet, and his mother died when a KSRTC bus collided with their car. His wife, Reena, survived with injuries and filed for accident compensation. The High Court cut her compensation by half, blaming her deceased husband for the accident based on a rough police sketch of the crash site.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and held the KSRTC bus driver 100% responsible for the accident. It ruled that a site map of a crash scene cannot be used to blame the driver of a smaller vehicle. The Court allowed new income proof and enhanced the compensation for the husband's death to Rs. 50.81 Lakhs with 6% interest.

This judgment protects accident victims from unfair reduction of compensation based on flimsy police sketches. It clarifies that a victim's family can submit new financial evidence even at a later stage if they were delayed due to trauma or shock.