JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. The MFA No.6622/2019 is filed seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 14.09.2019 passed in MVC No.3304/2018 on the file of the Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (herein after referred to as ‘the tribunal’ for short) consequently dismiss the claim petition of the respondent in MVC No.3304/2018. 2. The MFA No.3575/2021 is filed seeking to set aside, modify and enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The appellant herein in MFA No.6622/2019 is the respondent in MVC No.3304/2018 and the respondent herein are the claimants No.1 to 2 in MVC No.3304/2018. 4. The appellants herein in MFA No.3575/2021 are the respondent in MVC N0.3304/2018 and the respondent herein are the claimants in MVC N0.3304/2018. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-. On 31.08.2018 at about 9:15 a.m., while the deceased, Sri V. Jagadish, aged about 22 years and employed as a Sales Car Mechanic earning Rs.15,000/- per month, was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-JN- 5352 on Nagavara Ring Road near Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Manyatha Tech Park, the BMTC bus No.KA-57-F-2199 came from behind and hit the motorcycle, causing his death on spot due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioners/claimants claimed Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. The respondent–driver of the offending vehicle denied negligence and contended that the bus was driven cautiously and that the deceased, while attempting to overtake from the left, lost control and hit the footpath, resulting in the accident due to his own negligence. Respondent also disputed his age, income, and occupation. However, by judgment and award dated 14.06.2019, the Tribunal held the accident to be one of contributory negligence, fixing 90% negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and 10% on the deceased and assessed the income at Rs.12,000/- plus Rs.4,800/- for future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 18, and awarded Rs.18,14,400/- towards loss of dependency and other heads. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation that the spot mahazar and spot sketch marked at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are, on the face of the record, false and fabricated documents manufactured to suit the convenience of the claimants and do not portray the true facts. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation that the spot mahazar and spot sketch marked at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are, on the face of the record, false and fabricated documents manufactured to suit the convenience of the claimants and do not portray the true facts. The CCTV footage and photographs at Ex.R-3 to R-14 demonstrate that the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeding straight on its correct side of the carriageway and that the rider of the motorcycle, by his own negligent conduct, dashed against the left side footpath and fell; there is no evidential foundation that the bus struck the deceased. Notwithstanding the clear evidentiary position, the Tribunal erroneously attributed 90% negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. It is contended that the IMV report at Ex.P-5 clearly records absence of damage to the BMTC bus whilst noting damage upon the motorcycle (crash guard and front registration board). If really the bus dashed the motorcycle from behind at speed, as alleged, corresponding damage would have been found on the rear portion of the motorcycle and upon the front of the bus; no such damage is recorded. 8. It is further contended that The Tribunal also failed to properly appreciate the CCTV sequence and eyewitness testimony. The photographs extracted from CCTV footage at Exs.R-12 to R-14 shows that the motorcycle approaching from behind and overtaking the BMTC bus with ample of space. The bus continued to move in a straight line without turning towards the left. This clearly establishes any inference of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Both RW-1 and R2- Chudamappa Gururaj, Traffic Controller and Technical Assistant, CCTV Department of BMTC have stated that the CCTV camera fixed to the bus and the photographs/CD retrieved from the hard disk discloses absence of negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle and point out total negligence of the deceased. No material was elicited in their cross-examinations to establish guilt of the driver of the offending vehicle. 9. Finally, it is contended that the RW-3, Sri Siddappa, driver of the offending vehicle, deposed that the deceased, while attempting to overtake from the left, lost control, dashed against the footpath and fell near the left back wheel of the bus, sustaining a head injury and despite wearing a helmet, died due to his own negligence. 9. Finally, it is contended that the RW-3, Sri Siddappa, driver of the offending vehicle, deposed that the deceased, while attempting to overtake from the left, lost control, dashed against the footpath and fell near the left back wheel of the bus, sustaining a head injury and despite wearing a helmet, died due to his own negligence. The RW-3 also stated that he lodged complaints and forwarded the CCTV CD to the Commissioner of Police, without actionable response and nothing in cross- examination displaced his account or established 90%negligence on his part. 10. Further, RW-4, Sri.Lakshminarayana, Police Constable/complainant, in his examination-in-chief narrated that he observed that accident took place 50mtr away from his place and observed that there was heavy traffic, noted damage to the motorcycle’s headlight and handle and no notable damage was found on the bus, and that the accident occurred between the footpath and the BMTC bus wherein there was approximately two metres space between the footpath and BMTC bus. The police had arrived to the accident place only after occurring of the accident so the police was caught on the CCTV photo. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal’s apportionment of 90% negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle was unjustifiable. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.3575/2021, filed by the claimants challenging the contributory negligence, contended that the compensation and interest awarded by the tribunal was on the lower side and sought for enhancement of the compensation. 12. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side in both the appeals. 13. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under: 14. On a careful appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record and considering the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal suffers from fundamental infirmities of fact and law. The Tribunal decided without properly appreciating the CCTV footages, the IMV report and the ocular testimony of the independent prosecution witnesses. The CCTV stills taken from the bus, the statements of the BMTC CCTV custodians and the IMV report which records absence of any visible damage to the front of the bus are material pieces of evidence which were either ignored or given scanty weight. The CCTV stills taken from the bus, the statements of the BMTC CCTV custodians and the IMV report which records absence of any visible damage to the front of the bus are material pieces of evidence which were either ignored or given scanty weight. The reliance of the Tribunal on Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 (spot mahazar and spot sketch) as determinative, without adequate reason, amounts to an improper appreciation of the evidentiary matrix. 15. The primary error committed by the Tribunal was in the apportionment of negligence. The Tribunal fixed 90% negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and only 10% on the deceased despite clear evidence that the deceased was attempting to overtake from the left, lost his control and dashed against the left footpath. The statements of the driver of the offending vehicle (RW-3) and the police constable/complainant (RW-4), the CCTV photographs (Ex.R-12 to R-14) and the IMV findings together show that the bus was proceeding on its correct lane and found no damage. 16. In view of the above discussions, the accident was not occurred solely on the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the deceased which clearly reveals that the deceased had also contributed to the accident occurred. 17. In view of the same the apportionment of the negligence is fixed at 40% on the deceased and 60% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 18. It is observed by the Lok adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that took place in the year 2018, hence the notional income ought to have taken at Rs.12,500/- per month by the Tribunal and in view of the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of future prospects to the notional income of Rs.12,500/- per month. Hence, compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is reworked as hereunder:- (i) towards future prospects= Rs.12,500/- + 40% =Rs.17,500/- (ii) 50% Deduction towards personal expenses =(Rs.17,500- Rs.8,750/- = Rs.8,750/-) (iii) towards loss of dependency = Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 18 =Rs.18,90,000/- 19. The compensation awarded under other heads by the Tribunal is just and proper, needs no interference. Hence, compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is reworked as hereunder:- (i) towards future prospects= Rs.12,500/- + 40% =Rs.17,500/- (ii) 50% Deduction towards personal expenses =(Rs.17,500- Rs.8,750/- = Rs.8,750/-) (iii) towards loss of dependency = Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 18 =Rs.18,90,000/- 19. The compensation awarded under other heads by the Tribunal is just and proper, needs no interference. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.(Rs.18,90,000/- + Rs.80,000/- + Rs.15,000/- +Rs.15,000/- = Rs.20,00,000/-). 20. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 10%. The said finding being based on lack of appreciation of material placed on record, warrants interference. Therefore, apportionment of the negligence is fixed at 40% on the deceased. 21. After the deduction of 40% of the total compensation amount towards contributory negligence, the total compensation payable would be Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs.20,00,000/- - Rs.8,00,000/- ). 22. The appellant herein-Corporation contended before the Tribunal that Rs.15,000/- was paid to the father of the deceased at the time of accident. Hence, after deducting a sum of Rs.15,000/- the total compensation payable would be Rs.11,85,000/- (Rs.12,00,000/- -Rs.15,000/-). 23. Further, the interest of 9% awarded by the Tribunal is proper and holds good. Hence, the respondents /claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,85,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appellant/BMTC is liable to pay aforesaid compensation amount to the respondents herein/claimants. 24. Accordingly, the following order is passed: a) MFA No.6622/2019 is hereby partly allowed. b) MFA No.3575/2021 is allowed in part: i) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. ii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the Judgment. iii) The claimant would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period of 184 days in filing the appeal. iv) Apportionment of compensation shall be made as per the Award passed by this Court. v) Amount in deposit along with accrued interest, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.