- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201208 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY, ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE SARIGE SADANA, KALABURAGI-585101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KERAPPA S/O BAPURAY PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. SARUBAI W/O KERAPPA PATIL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O HALAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. CHADACHAN, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-585321. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KOUJALAGI C. L., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2023 BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO. VII VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.176/2021. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayapura [for short, ‘the KSRTC’] by challenging the judgment and award dated 22.11.2023 passed in MVC No.176/2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII, Vijayapura [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] for having granted compensation in favour of the respondents on the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, ‘the M.V. Act’]. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 3. The appellant was the respondent and the respondents were the claimants before the Tribunal. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that they have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.75,50,000/- for the death of their son Siddaram who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 12.11.2020. It is alleged that on the said date at about 5.30 p.m. on Vijayapur – Indi road near KEB Station at Atharga when the deceased Siddaram was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28/EM-9502, at that time, KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-28/F-2129 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent driving with high speed and dashed the motor cycle, due to which Siddaram sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants have contended that the age of the deceased was 24 years. He was doing private job in TATA Power - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 Solar Systems Ltd., Bengaluru and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost their beloved son and lost their earning member. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus and the respondent is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 5. The respondent – KSRTC appeared through their counsel and filed statement of objections by denying all the averments made in the petition in respect of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus but contended that the deceased was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and hence by taking the other contentions of age, occupation, income of the deceased as false and contending that the claim of the claimants is excessive and exorbitant, prayed to dismiss the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether petitioners prove that death of their son Siddaram s/o. Kerappa Patil resulted due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of KSRTC bus No.KA-28/F-2129 as asserted in the petition? 2. Whether respondent further proves that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4. What order or award?” 7. To prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner examined himself as PW-1 also examined the official from M/s. Needs MMS Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru and eyewitness to the incident as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked 33 documents. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW-1 and got marked two documents. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 accordingly allowed the petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.21,49,000/- under different heads as under: Sl. No. Heads of compensation Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs.20,79,000/- 2. Loss of parental consortium Rs.40,000/- 3. Funeral expenses and obsequies Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of the estate Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.21,49,000/- 8. Feeling aggrieved with the fixing of liability and also quantum, the appellant - KSRTC is before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant seriously contended that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the liability solely on the KSRTC bus driver even though there was negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The complaint was also filed by the driver of the bus as per Ex.R-1 which was marked and the same was not seriously disputed by the claimants. Such being the case, fixing the liability on the KSRTC bus is not correct. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive. Hence, prayed for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 reducing the same. It is also contended that even if the Court considers the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and reduce the compensation. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioners has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and also contended that the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus which was not challenged by him and merely filing of a complaint is an afterthought before the Superintendent of Police is not a is not a criteria to come to the conclusion that there is a contributory negligence. On the other hand, it is contended that the negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus and an eye-witness is also examined as PW.2. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal and also contended the parental consortium granted by the Tribunal is only Rs.40,000/- in fact, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, additional sum of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 Rs.Rs.40,000/- should have been awarded. Hence, prayed for granting an additional sum of Rs.40,000/-. 11. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The points that arises for consideration are; (a) Whether the accident dated 12.11.2020 had been occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus due to which the deceased injuries and died? (b) Whether the respondent-KSRTC proves that the accident was occurred due to negligent riding of the deceased motorcycle? (c) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant requires for any modification? 12. On careful perusal of the records which reveals that on 12.11.2020 the accident was occurred on Vijayapura-Indi road is not in dispute and there was head on collision between the motorcycle bearing registration - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 No.KA-28/EM-9502 and the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-2129. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus. In order to prove the said contention, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents Exs.P1, certified copy of FIR, Ex.P2, certified copy of the complaint, Ex.P3, the inquest mahazar, Ex.P4, post mortem report, Ex.P5, spot panchanama, Ex.P6, IMV report and Ex.P7, copy of the charge sheet. On careful reading of the FIR and charge sheet indicate that the accident was said to be occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus. PW.2 also examined by the petitioners in order to prove the rash and negligent act, who is said to be an eye-witness to the incident. PW.3 also filed affidavit stating that there was rash and negligent on the part of the driving by the driver of the offending KSRTC bus driver. During the cross examination, there is nothing elicited by the counsel for respondent to disprove the evidence of PW.3, who is an - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 eye-witness to the accident. Though, PW.3 is not an eye- witness and he is only an informant to the police. Based on the evidence of the eye-witness, the police after receiving the FIR visited the spot, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the KSRTC bus. The said charge sheet has been not challenged by the KSRTC before the any Court of law or for setting aside the charges made against him. Of course, the driver of the KSRTC bus filed a copy of the complaint at Ex.R1 dated 17.11.2020. Filing the copy of complaint on 17.11.2020, reveals that it is an after thought in order to avoid the negligence on his part he has filed complaint to Superintendent of Police. If at all, the Superintendent of Police did not entertain the complaint, he could have filed the complaint before the concerned Magistrate and got it referred to the police for the purpose of investigation along with the case registered against him which was not made. Therefore, normally the KSRTC drivers come before the Court by denying the rash and negligent on their part and mechanically without adducing any independent - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 evidence or any third party evidence or passengers of the bus to show that there is no negligence on his part. Therefore, considering the evidence of the PWs.1, 3 and Exs.P1 to 7, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred purely on the negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus. By considering the facts and circumstance of case and the entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that this accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC bus which does not call for any interference. Hence, we answer point No.1 in favour of the petitioners and point No.2 against the respondent-KSRTC. 13. As regards the computation of compensation, the age of the deceased was 25 years. The income for the accident that occur in the year 2020 was considered at Rs.13,750/-. To the said amount, if additional 40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects is added, it comes to Rs.19,250/-. Further, the deceased was bachelor, 50% of his income has to be - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 deducted towards his personal and living expenses in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, then it comes to Rs.9,625/-. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,79,000/- (Rs.9,625 x 12 18) which is rightly assessed by the Tribunal and hence we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in assessing the loss of dependency. 14. As regards the parental consortium, the Tribunal has awarded only of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and obsequies. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, Rs.40,000/- each of the parents are required to be awarded under the head parental consortium. However, the Tribunal has only awarded Rs.40,000/- and the petitioners has also not filed any appeal seeking enhancement. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 15. We also find that an amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by the KSRTC to the deceased immediately after the accident and the same was deducted by the Tribunal. In our considered opinion, this amount has been paid by the KSRTC from the fund collected extra of Rs.1/- from the passengers of the bus and it is not from the Corporation. Such being the case, Rs.25,000/- ought not to have been deducted from the compensation. Though there is no appeal filed by the petitioners, we feel it proper to modify the award of compensation instead of reducing, we require to increase Rs.25,000/- which was deducted by Tribunal and also by acting under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, the Court can grant just compensation in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash and Others Vs. The Divisional Manager and Another, reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639, and even though there was no cross objection or appeal filed by the petitioners, the Court can award just compensation. Therefore, we proposed to award Rs.40,000/- in addition - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 to the award passed by the Tribunal under the head loss of parental consortium. 16. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER (a) The appeal filed by the KSRTC is hereby dismissed. (b) The award of quantum of compensation by the Tribunal is modified with an addition of Rs.40,000/-. (c) The petitioners are held entitled for the total compensation of Rs.21,89,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization including the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was deducted by the Tribunal. (d) The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1605-DB MFA No. 201208 of 2024 eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (e) The statutory amount deposit by the Corporation shall be transmitted to Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SWK,MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:SI