- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 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. 204168 OF 2023 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202467 OF 2022 (MV-D) IN M.F.A NO.204168/2023: BETWEEN: 1. ANITA W/O GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. NIKIL GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. NITIN @ MITUN S/O GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. SUSHANT GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL HIS MOTHER M/G ANITA W/O GOPAL CHAVAN, APPELLANT NO.1, 5. KHEMU SAKHARAMA CHAVAN, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O: SOMADEVAR HATTI, L.T.NO.1, TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586104. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL OFFICER NEKRTC, VIJAYAPURA DIVISION, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA – 586101. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.243/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS. 41,82,650/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT. IN M.F.A NO.202467/2022: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA DIVISION, VIJAYAPURA. (NOW REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANITA W/O GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 2. NIKIL GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. NITIN @ MITUN S/O GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. SUSHANT GOPAL CHAVAN, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESP. NO.3 & 4 HEREIN ARE MINORS U/G OF THEIR MOTHER RESP.1 HEREIN, 5. HASAKIBAI W/O KHEMU CHAVAN, SINCE RESP.5 HEREIN DIED & LR’S ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AMENDED AS PER ORDER DT: 15/2/24 6. KHEMU SAKHARAMA CHAVAN, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O: SOMADEVAR HATTI, L.T.NO.1, VIJAYAPURA – 586104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4 & R6; R6 IS TREATED THE LR’S OF R5) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT: 03.02.2022 IN MVC NO.243/2019 PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T – XV, VIJAYAPURA. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) MFA.No.202467/2022 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transportation Corporation (for short, ‘KSRTC’) challenging the liability fixed on it, whereas MFA.No.204168/2023 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under the judgment and award by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-XV, Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation in MVC.No.243/2019 vide common judgment dated 03.02.2022. 2. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and hence, they are taken up together. 3. The parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC. 5. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that, they have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) for claiming compensation of Rs.51,12,000/- for the death of the deceased Gopal Chavan who died in the accident dated 06.10.2018. It is alleged by the claimants that on 06.10.2018 at about 3:00 p.m. on Tikota-Jath road near Somadevara Hatti when the deceased Gopal was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA-37/U-9643 along with his minor son-Nitin. At that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1967 came from opposite direction in a rush and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorcycle, due to which the deceased Gopal sustained injury, dead in the hospital and the minor son who was injured was taken to the hospital where he survived after taking treatment. A separate petition was filed for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 claiming compensation for the injured in MVC.No.553/2019. It is contended that the deceased was working as mason and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and due to untimely death, the family lost the livelihood and he was also contributing entire amount of salary to the family and therefore, they claimed compensation on various heads. 6. The respondent-KSTRC appeared through the counsel and filed written statement by denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus. The KSRTC also denied the age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the minor son and also contended that the accident was occurred purely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself and therefore, contended that the KSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 “1. Whether petitioners prove that deceased Gopal Khemu Chavan died and minor petitioner – Nitin sustained injuries accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus No.KA-33/F-0271 by its driver? 2. Whether petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, how much? 3. What order or award?” 8. In order to prove the contention of the petitioners, the first claimant examined herself as PW-1 and also examined one eyewitness as PW-2 and got marked 9 documents i.e, certified copies of FIR, complaint, crime details form, spot sketch, post mortem report, IMV report, charge sheet, driving license extract and inquest mahazar as exhibits P1 to P9. The exhibits P10 to P16 are the medical bills pertaining to the injured Nitin. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW-1 and got marked four documents as exhibits R1 to R4. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 9. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the partly affirmative and finally awarded the compensation of Rs.18,58,647/- under the following heads: Compensation heads Compensation amount Loss of dependency Rs.16,92,096/- Medical expenses Rs.11,551/- Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs.75,000/- Funeral expenses and obsequies Rs.20,000/- Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.18,58,647/- 10. The Tribunal has fixed the liability at 50% on the respondent-KSRTC to pay compensation considering contributory negligence at 50% each on the deceased and the respondent - KSRTC. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the KSRTC has filed MFA No.202467/2022, whereas the claimants have filed MFA No.204168/2023 for enhancement of compensation. 11. The learned counsel for claimants has vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed error in fixing the contributory negligence at 50% each, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 even though there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. However, the charge sheet is filed against both the driver of the bus and rider of the motorcycle. He further submitted that the motorcycle is a small vehicle and bus is a heavy vehicle, at least 20% towards the rider of the motorcycle and 80% towards the driver of the bus should be considered as contributory negligence, but 50% each is not correct and hence, prayed for reducing the same. 12. The learned counsel also contended in respect of quantum of compensation that, though the Tribunal considered Rs.11,750/- as income per month, but failed to consider 40% of the loss of future prospects as per the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. Therefore, he prayed for enhancing the same. He also contended that the loss of consortium was not properly considered by the Tribunal and prayed for enhancing the same as per the Magma General Insurance 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others2. 13. The learned counsel for KSRTC has strenuously contended that the liability shall be fixed on the rider of the motorcycle as there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and even otherwise 50% each is not correct. Hence, she prayed for enhancing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-rider and reduce the contributory negligence on the driver and prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the KSRTC. 14. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the accident dated 06.10.2018 was occurred due to the contributory negligence of both deceased Gopal Chavan and driver of the KSRTC bus? If so, fixing the negligence at 50:50 by the Tribunal calls for any interference? 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 (ii) Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or require any modification? If so, what extent? 15. We have perused the entire trial Court records especially the evidence of PW-1 and evidence of PW-2 who is the eyewitness to the accident. Before the Tribunal, they have stated that this accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus driver. The Ex.P.1 is the copy of FIR, Ex.P2 is the copy of the complaint which was filed by some 3rd party who was present at the spot. As per the FIR, this accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the KRSTC bus. Ex.P5 is the post mortem report, Ex.P6 is the IMV report and Ex.P7 is the charge sheet and Ex.P8 is the driving license of the deceased Gopal Chavan. These documents show that this accident was occurred to the contributory negligence of both the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 16. The RW-1/driver of the KSRTC bus has given evidence and marked four documents. He has also filed a complaint, where the Police have filed B-final report as they have already filed charge sheet against both the rider and driver of the KSRTC bus in Ex.P7 and filing of the B- final report has not been challenged by the driver to show that there is no negligence on his part. The filing of B- final report and charge sheet clearly suggests that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of both the driver of the KSRTC bus and the rider of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Gopal Chavan. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that there is a contributory negligence. However, the vehicle driven by the deceased was a motorcycle, whereas the KSRTC bus is a heavy motor vehicle. The contributory negligence considered by the Tribunal at 50% each is not correct. Though the learned counsel for the KSRTC contended that 80% shall be fixed on the deceased and the same contention was taken by the claimants that 80% shall be fixed on the KSRTC bus driver. But, looking into the facts and circumstances, we - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 propose to consider the ratio of contributory negligence at 30:70 i.e., 30% on the rider of the motorcycle i.e, the deceased and 70% on the KSRTC bus driver. Hence, to that extent, the issue No.1 of the trial Court is interfered. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 17. Insofar as computation of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of deceased at Rs.11,750/- as notional income for the accident in the year 2018. However, the Tribunal has committed error in not considering 40% of the loss of future prospects as per Pranay Sethi case referred supra. Therefore, if Rs.4700/- is 40% of Rs.11,750/-, it comes to Rs.16,450/-. The claimants are six in number. Therefore, 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards the personal expenditure. If 1/4th of the income at Rs.4,112/- is deducted, it comes to Rs.12,338/- per month. The same is multiplied by 12 months with 16 multiplier (Rs.12,338 x 12 x 16) it comes to Rs.23,68,896/-. This should be the actual loss of dependency. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 18. Insofar as loss of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- and loss of love and affection at Rs.75,000/- but not properly considered the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited referred supra, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards the loss of consortium that is parental, spouse and filial consortium. Therefore, when the six claimants have filed the petition, Rs.40,000/- each is required to be paid i.e, Rs.40,000/- x 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-. 19. As per the Pranay Sethi case, compensation amount Rs.30,000/- should be awarded towards the funeral expenses. It is also seen from the record that the deceased was first taken to the hospital where treatment was given, but he was succumbed to death. Rs.11,551/- was awarded towards the medical expenses and the same is affirmed. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for compensation as under: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 Description Amount Loss of dependency Rs.23,68,896.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 6) Rs.2,40,000.00 Conventional head Rs.30,000.00 Medical expenses Rs.11,551.00 Total Rs.26,50,447.00 20. As we already held above, 30% of the contributory negligence should be reduced from the loss of dependency that is out of Rs.23,68,896/- and this Court is not inclined to deduct any contributory negligence towards the medical expenses, loss of consortium and conventional amount. The negligence is holding in respect of the loss of dependency but not any other heads. Therefore, 30% of Rs.23,68,896/- i.e., Rs.7,10,668/- is deducted and it comes to Rs.16,58,228/-. 21. Thus, the compensation is re-assessed as under: - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 Description Amount Loss of dependency Rs.16,58,228.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 6) Rs.2,40,000.00 Conventional head Rs.30,000.00 Medical expenses Rs.11,551.00 Total Rs.19,39,779.00 Award of the Tribunal Rs.9,29,350.00 Enhanced Compensation Rs.10,10,429.00 22. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by KSRTC in MFA.No.202467/2022 is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.No.204168/2023 is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 03.02.2022 passed in MVC No.243/2019 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACt- XV, Vijayapura is modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,10,429/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1612-DB MFA No. 204168 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 202467 of 2022 which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iv) The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 381 days. (v) The apportionment made by the Tribunal is unaltered. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: PS