- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201564 OF 2017 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 200003 OF 2023 IN MFA NO.201567/2017: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC SARIGE SADANA, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI. NOW THROUGH ITS MD, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHOBA W/O SIDDANNA ANKALAGI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD 2. RAJASHREE D/O LATE SIDDANNA ANKALAGI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT BOTH R/O MALKOOD VILLAGE, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. BIDAR NOW R/AT ANKALGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA – 585212. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASHANT S. KUMMAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2017, AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2017, IN MVC NO.151/2015 IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT KALABURAGI. IN MFA CROSS OBJ. NO.200003/2023: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHOBA W/O SIDDANNA ANKALAGI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD 2. RAJASHREE D/O LATE SIDDANNA ANKALAGI AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT BOTH R/O MALKOOD VILLAGE, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. BIDAR NOW R/AT ANKALGI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA – 585212. ...CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI PRASHANT S. KUMMAN, ADV.) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC SARIGE SADANA, STATION ROAD, GULBARGA – 585103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADV.) THIS CROSS APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.151/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, KALABURAGI, ENCHANCE AND ALLOW THIS CROSS OBJECTION AS CLAIMED BY THE CROSS OBJECTORS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) These two appeals are filed under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the same are arising out of the judgment and award dated 11.07.2017 passed in MVC.No.151/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi. 02. Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 03. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 04. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent-Corporation has filed the appeal in MFA No.201564/2017 challenging the liability and the claimants have filed the appeal in MFA Crob.No.200003/2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 05. The case of the claimants is that they have filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act for claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of one Prashant the son of the claimant No.1 who died in the road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 10.08.2014, when the deceased riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/Y-4001 on National Highway road in normal speed, a bus bearing registration No.KA-32/F-1876 was proceeding ahead of the said motorcycle and all of sudden the driver of the bus applied brakes and stopped the bus in the middle of the road, due to which the said motorcycle dashed to the said bus. In the said accident, the Prashant sustained grievous injuries on his head, both legs, hands and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Hospital and taken treatment as an inpatient and succumbed to the injuries on 16.08.2014. Due to untimely death of deceased, the claimants i.e., widow mother and unmarried sister suffered loss of dependency. Hence, they have filed claim petition seeking compensation on various heads. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 06. The respondent-Corporation appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement by denying the rash and negligent driving, age, occupation and income of the deceased and contended that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent on the part of rider of the motorcycle by the deceased himself who was dashed the bus from backside without maintaining distance and without wearing helmet so also without following the traffic rules. Therefore, there must be contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 07. Based upon the above pleadings the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- I. Whether the petitioners prove that on 10.08.2014 at about 9.30 a.m. near the warehouse located at Tengli cross, on Gulbarga- Sedam main road, the deceased Prashant S/o: Siddanna Ankalgi met with an accident and died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-32/F-1876? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 II. Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom? III. What order or award? 08. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 13. On the other hand, the respondent-Corporation examined its driver as RW.1 and no documents were marked. 09. On the basis of the material evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the partly affirmative and issue No.3 as per final order. The claim petition was partly allowed and ordered that the claimants are entitled for the following compensation as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/- 2. Funeral and transportation expenses Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of dependency Rs.9,72,000/- 4. Medical expenses Rs.1,83,300/- Total Rs.12,14,300/- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 10. The Tribunal has fixed the entire liability on the respondent-Corporation along with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the appeal challenging the liability and the claimants have filed the Cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has erred in answering issue No.1 as against the claimants and as per Ex.P3-charge sheet, the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, who dashed the bus without giving any distance while coming behind the bus. Due to some disturbance on the road, the driver of the bus applied the brakes and the accident could have avoided by the deceased, if he was maintained any distance between the bus and motorcycle which was not followed and he was also not worn the helmet. Therefore, there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle which - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 is not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed for exonerating the liability at-least to hold the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. In addition to the arguments, the learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering 50% of the future prospects to the income of the deceased which is not correct as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 and 40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects should be considered. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Claimants supports the issue No.1 held by the Tribunal that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and contended that the charge sheet is filed only against the driver of the bus and there is no independent evidence adduced by the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 driver of the bus to show that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the charge has also not been challenged. Such being the case, it cannot be considered as contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month which is very meager. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month shall be considered as the notional income for the accident of the year 2014. Hence, prayed for enhancing the compensation. 15. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the points that would arise for our consideration are as under:- I. Whether the Tribunal justified in holding the issue No.1 in favour of claimants that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 bus which calls for any interference by this Court? II. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? If so to what extent? Regarding Point No.1 :- 16. On perusal of the records, especially FIR and charge sheet filed by the police and the evidence of PW.1 which goes to show that the police after registering the FIR against the driver of the bus who is said to be ran away from the bus even without intimating the police and not providing any treatment to the injured-deceased. The police after due investigation filed the charge sheet as per Ex.P3, wherein it clearly reveals that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus and there is no charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle that he was contributed any negligence for causing the accident. Though RW.1, in his evidence stated that he has stopped the bus and the deceased did not maintain the distance and also not worn - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 the helmet. However, there is no reason for him to stop the vehicle in the middle of the road. To support his contention, he has not examined any independent witness i.e., passengers of the bus or conductor of the bus to show that there is no negligence on his part or any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider. Even the charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus was not challenged by the Corporation. Such being the case, merely an oral evidence of the bus driver cannot be acceptable when the documentary evidence is against the driver of the bus. It is well settled that the oral evidence cannot be override by documentary evidence. Such being the case, the Tribunal has rightly held by considering the oral and documentary evidence of the claimants that the accident was occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. Therefore, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in answering issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and as against respondent- Corporation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 Regarding Point No.2 :- 18. With regard to the assessment of compensation, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. The accident was occurred in the year 2014. In our opinion, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, in the absence of any documentary evidence of proof of income, we propose to consider Rs.7,500/- per month as the notional income of the deceased. 19. It is well settled law that as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) 40% of the income should be considered as future prospects. However, the Tribunal has added 50% of the future prospects which is not proper. Hence, we propose to add 40% of the assessed income under the head loss of future prospects. Thus, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.10,500/- (7,500 + 3,000). - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 20. The age of the deceased was 23 years, the applicable multiplier is 18. The claimant No.1 is widowed mother and claimant No.2 is unmarried sister of the deceased, they both are definitely dependent on the deceased. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case SARLA VERMA (SMT) & OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER2, when there is no other rebuttal evidence, 1/3rd should be deducted towards the personal income of the deceased. If 1/3rd (Rs.3,000), to the income of the deceased is deducted, it comes to Rs.7,000/-. The net income of the deceased would be Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,12,000/- towards the loss of dependency, as against Rs.9,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. As regards to the love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/- under this head. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram3 the mother is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium and claimant No.2 is sister of the deceased under the head loss of love and affection. Hence, the claimants are entitled for Rs.80,000/- under the head loss of love and affection. 22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,83,300/- towards medical expenses. As the death was occurred in the hospital only on 16.08.2014, he was almost survived under treatment for six days. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses is hereby affirmed. 23. As regards the funeral and transportation expenses, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- under this head. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards funeral and transportation of expenses. 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 23. Therefore, we re-assess the compensation as under:- Description Amount Loss of Love and Affection Rs.15,12,000/- Loss of consortium & love and affection (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Rs.80,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,83,300/- Towards conventional expenses (Transportation and funeral) Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.18,05,300/- Award of the Tribunal Rs.12,14,300/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.05,91,000/- 24. In view of answering point No.1, the respondent-Corporation is liable to pay entire compensation along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Hence, the appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation is liable to allowed in part in view of considering 40% of the future prospects to the income of the deceased and the appeal filed by the claimants is also liable to allowed. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 25. For the above said discussions, point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R I. The appeal filed by the KSRTC in MFA.No.201564/2014 is allowed in part. II. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA Crob.No.200003/2023 is allowed in part. III. The judgment and award dated 11.07.2017 passed in MVC.No.151/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, is modified. IV. The claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.18,05,300/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 980 days as per the order dated 01.04.2025. V. The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2117-DB MFA No. 201564 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200003 of 2023 the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. VI. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. VII. The rest of the Judgment passed by the tribunal is maintained. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: PS