- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.201118 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200571 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN M.F.A.NO.201118/2021: BETWEEN: 1. NAGANATH S/O AUDUBAR @ AUDUMBAR MALAGE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. MUKTABAI W/O NAGANATH MALAGE AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, 3. POOJA W/O AMOL MALAGE AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O H.NO.43, TANDUR, SIDDAPUR TQ: MANGALWEDA, DIST: SOLAPUR – 413305. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROL, NEKRTC DIVISION OFFICE, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR – 586101. (OWNER/INSURER OF BUS NO.KA25/F3138) 2. DASHARAT GODGE AT/PO: DARPHAL SEENA, TQ. MADHA, DIST: SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA – 413209. (OWNER OF JEEP NO.MH-45-N-4327) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADV. FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, VIJAYPUR IN MVC.NO.72/2018 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANTS HEREIN. IN M.F.A.NO.200571/2021: BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROL, NEKRTC DIVISION OFFICE, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 AND: 1. NAGANATH S/O AUDUBAR @ AUDUMBAR MALAGE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. MUKTABAI W/O NAGANATH MALAGE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, 3. POOJA W/O AMOL MALAGE AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL R/O: H.NO.43 TANDUR SIDDAPUR TQ: MANGALWEDA, DIST: SOLAPUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V. ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, VIJAYPURA IN MVC.NO.72/2018 BY EXONERATING THE LIABILITY FROM THE APPELLANT ALSO BE PLEASED TO REDUCE THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL 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 14.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.72/2018 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT- XII, Vijaypur. 02. Though this matter is listed for admission, 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 petitioners have filed the appeal in MFA No.201118/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation and the respondent-Corporation has filed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 the appeal in MFA No.200571/2021 seeking to reduce the compensation as well as the liability of 75% on the respondent-Corporation. 05. The case of the claimants is that they have filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act for claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 08.09.2017 the deceased Amol and others were proceeding in a Cruiser Jeep bearing registration No.MH-45/N-4327. When they reached near Bilagi Cross on Hubli-Vijaypur road, the driver of the said cruiser jeep was driving the same in a slow and cautious manner, at that time, the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-3138 being driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner lost control over it and dashed to cruiser. Due to head on collision, some of the persons were injured so also died and Amol also died in the said accident and they claimed the compensation on various heads as they being the legal heirs of the deceased. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 06. The respondent No.1 – owner of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25-F-3138 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement by denying the rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. It is contended that the accident is occurred purely due to the rash and negligent on the part of driver of the cruiser jeep. Therefore, the liability shall be fixed on the owner of the cruiser jeep. It is denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 07. The respondent No.2 – owner of the cruiser jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-45-N-4327 appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the cruiser jeep and contended that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. It is further contended that the abatement charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the cruiser. Hence, if any liability, shall be fixed on the KSRTC bus. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 08. Based upon the above pleadings the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- I. Whether petitioners prove that on 08.09.2017 in the morning when the deceased Amol Malage was traveling in Cruiser Jeep No.MH-45-N-4327 near Bilagi cross on Hubli – Vijaypur road, the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25-F-3138 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Cruiser Jeep, as a result Amol Mulage has sustained grevious injuries and died.? II. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation.? If so, what is the quantum and from whom.? III. What order or award.? 09. The claimant No.3 was examined as PW.7 and documents marked together with other claimants as Ex.P.1 to 39. On the other hand, the respondents examined RW.1 and the official witness examined as CW.1 and got marked Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 10. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in MVC.No.72/2018 in part awarding the compensation as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Loss of income due to dependency Rs.10,88,136/- 2. Towards love and affection Rs.30,000/- 3. Towards loss of estate Rs.30,000/- 4. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- 5. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.12,03,136/- 11. The Tribunal has fixed the liability at 75% on the KSRTC bus and 25% on the owner of the cruiser jeep along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation and the KSRTC has also preferred the appeal for questioning the quantum of compensation and liability. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 13. The learned counsel for the appellants - claimants contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased - Amol at Rs.8,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2017, which is meager. It is contended that even as per the Lok-Adalath Chart, the notional income at Rs.10,250/- was considered by the Court for the accident of the year 2017. It is further contended that the future prospects at 40% of the income has not been taken into consideration. The Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation towards loss of consortium as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram1. It is also contended that in MVC.No.200924/2020 and connected matters dated 21.03.2022, this Court has already considered the liability which was already upheld by this Court and attained finality in respect of 75% on the KSRTC bus and 25% liability fixed on the owner of the cruiser. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - KSRTC has seriously objected the appeal and contended that though award of compensation was rightly considered by the Tribunal, but fixing the liability at 75% is exorbitant. It has to be reduced at least 50%. Hence, prayed for allowing its appeal. 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 fixing liability on the KSRTC at 75% and at 25% on the owner of the cruiser jeep,, is appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the case, or called for any interference by this Court.? II. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation.? If so to what extent.? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 Regarding Point No.1 :- 16. On perusal of the records, which reveals that the accident was occurred on 08.09.2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of the both the vehicles i.e., due to head-on collision of Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.MH-45-N- 4327 and KSRTC bearing Reg.No.KA-25-F-3138 is not in dispute. The police have filed the charge-sheet against the drivers of the bus and abated charge—sheet is filed against the driver of the jeep who also died in the said accident. The Ex.P.8 – A and B charge-sheet is filed by the police, which clearly reveals that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent on the part of both the drivers. 17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in MVC.No.200924/2020 and connected matters dated 21.03.2022, had fixed the liability at the ratio of 75% on the KSRTC bus and 25% on the owner of the jeep, which attained the finality. Such being the case, fixing the liability at 75% on the KSRTC bus and 25% on the owner of the Jeep, we are of the opinion that it is attained finality. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed the liability in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 the ratio of 75% on the KSRTC bus and 25% on the owner of the jeep, which do not call for any interference. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2 :- 18. With regard to the assessment of compensation, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. In our opinion, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the income at Rs.8,000/- per month, as per the Lok-Adalath chart the Courts are considering a sum of Rs.10,250/- per month, as the notional income for the accident of the year 2017. 19. It is also seen from the records that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. Hence, the claimants are also entitled to an addition of 40% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects. 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 20. The age of the deceased is 28 years, the multiplier is 17. The deceased was married person and there are 03 dependents. Hence, there is deduction of 1/3rd to the income of the deceased. If Rs.10,250/- + 40% (Rs.4,100/-) (Rs.10,250/- + Rs.4,100) = Rs.14,350/- x 12 x 17 minus 1/3rd = Rs.19,51,600/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled for Rs.19,51,600/- towards the loss of dependency, as against Rs.10,88,136/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. As regards to the consortium, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma (supra), the deceased has left 03 dependents. They are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, which comes to Rs.40,000/- x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. 22. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards the love and affection at Rs.30,000/- and towards loss of estate at Rs.30,000/- and towards funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-. The same is set-aside and modified at Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 23. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation as under:- Description Amount Loss of dependency Rs.19,51,600/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 3) Rs.1,20,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.21,01,600/- Award of the Tribunal Rs.12,03,136/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.08,98,464/- Rounded off Rs.08,98,500/- 24. For the above said discussion, 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.200571/2021 is dismissed. II. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.No.201118/2021 is allowed in part. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 III. The judgment and award dated 14.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.72/2018 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-XII, Vijayapur, is modified. IV. The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.8,98,500/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. V. The respondent No.1 – KSRTC is directed to deposit 75% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.6,73,875/- and 25% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.2,24,625/- by the owner of the cruiser jeep with interest, before the Tribunal within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. VI. The apportionment made by the Tribunal is unaltered. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1795-DB MFA No. 201118 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 200571 of 2021 VII. The amount in deposit made by the KSRTC shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR/KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: PS