- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1385 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.386 OF 2022 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 1385/2022: BETWEEN: 1. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SRI MANJUNATH K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. KUM NANDA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK- 560 064 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD K H ROAD SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU -560 027 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RADHA B P.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4083/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH.13), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 386/2022: BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU - 560 027 (OWNER OF THE KSRTC BUS BEARING REG NO KA-40-F-106) REP HEREIN BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BANGALORE ...APPELLANT (BY SMT.RADHA B P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SRI MANJUNATH K W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3. KUM NANDA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK- 560 064 ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2021 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD MADE BY THE HON'BLE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , BENGALURU IN MVC NO.4083/249 DATED 22.09.2021. THESE APPEALS, ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals - MFA No.1385/2022 and MFA No.386/2022 are preferred by the claimants and the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') respectively challenging the common judgment and award dated 22nd September 2021 passed in MVC No.4083/2019 by the II Additional Judge & ACMM and Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 2. MFA No.1385/2022 is preferred by the claimants on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas, MFA No.386/2022 is preferred by the KSRTC on the ground that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal being perverse, arbitrary, illegal and erroneous and the same is to be set aside or in the alternative for reduction of compensation, fixing contributory negligence against rider of the bicycle. 3. Parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1 On 14.09.2011 at about 5:45 p.m. one Mr.Krishna was proceeding on his bicycle on Bengaluru- Doddballapura road cautiously and slowly, at that time KSRTC bus bearing registration number KA 40-F-106 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle from behind, due to which Krishnappa fell down and sustained multiple injuries and he was immediately taken to K.K. hospital for first aid treatment and thereafter - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 to Sita Bhateja hospital, Bangalore, where despite providing best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 16/9/2011. The claimants being the legal representatives/ dependants filed the claim petition seeking compensation. 4.2 The KSRTC filed the written statement denying the claim of the claimants so also negligence attributed against driver of the bus. The KSRTC pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of deceased/rider of the bicycle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4.3 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.13,18,600/- along with interest at 6% per annum and directed the KSRTC to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days. 4.4 Both the claimants as well as the KSRTC are before this Court challenging the judgment and award - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 passed by the Tribunal on several grounds urged in their respective appeals. 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel - Smt. B.P. Radha appearing for the KSRTC that the Tribunal has committed gross error in not appreciating the materials placed on record in the proper perspective and has passed an erroneous order fixing liability as against the KSRTC, ignoring the acquittal of driver of the KSRTC bus in the criminal prosecution, which was placed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal taken the age of the deceased to be 40 years, which is erroneous and infact the post-mortem report filed by the claimants themselves shows the age of the deceased to be 42 years. She further contends that the claimants have not produced any material with regard to proof of income and the Tribunal has erroneously taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month. The accident is of the year 2011 and in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income at - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 Rs.6,500/- per month as per the Legal Services Authority chart. 5.1 Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal erred in deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that the claimant Nos.2 and 3 are majors and could not be considered as dependants of the deceased and claimant No.1/wife being the only dependant, 50% ought to have been deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased rather than one-third deducted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal failed to invoke contributory negligence against rider of the bicycle, who came in a negligent manner and dashed against the bus which was moving slowly after having halted at the bus stand. These aspects have been conveniently ignored by the tribunal. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contends that the Tribunal has not considered the materials on record and has awarded meager compensation, which requires to be enhanced. He contends that the age of the deceased is 40 years, which is correctly taken on the basis of the Voter ID Card produced by the claimants and the same need not be disturbed. He also contends that the deceased was infact a businessman earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month, but however the Tribunal has taken the income at 7500/-, which could be retained. He also contends that the Tribunal awarded future prospects at 25%, which requires to be enhanced to 40%. Lastly, learned counsel contends that there is no contributory negligence as against rider of the bicycle. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 perused the impugned judgment and award so also the original records. 8. The points that would arise for consideration in these appeals are as under: i) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation ? ii) Whether the KSRTC has made out any ground for setting aside the impugned judgment & award ? iii) Whether any contributory negligence is to be attributed against the rider of the bicycle/deceased ? iv) Whether the claimant Nos.2 and 3 fall within the category of dependants ? v) What order ? 9. The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death having occurred due to the road traffic accident, are all established by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 10. It is seen that the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased to be 40 years based on the Voter ID Card produced by the claimants as per Ex.P13. Learned counsel for the KSRTC contends that as per the post-mortem report, age of the deceased is 42 years and therefore, his age is to be taken as 42 years. The same cannot be accepted for the reason that the Voter ID card is a Government record, wherein age of the of the deceased is mentioned as 40 years and therefore, the Tribunal taken the age of the deceased to be 40 years, which does not call for interference. The appropriate multiplier is '15', which is rightly taken by the Tribunal and the same is retained. 11. The Tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the KSRTC that the income requires to be reduced to Rs.6,500/- per month as per the notional income chart as no document is produced by the claimants - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 in proof of income of the deceased. Hence, the income is reduced to Rs.6,500/- per month. 12. The deceased was married and aged 40 years at the time of the accident and therefore, the Tribunal rightly added 25% towards loss of future prospects and deducted one-third towards personal expenses. Though it is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the KSRTC that 50% of income to be deducted towards personal expenses, I am not in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the KSRTC. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (paragraph-30) reported in (2009)6 SCC 121 does not give distinction to the married person having dependants, one or two. The distinction is given only for unmarried persons and in those cases, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly deducted one-third towards personal expenses and the same is retained. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 13. Therefore, loss of dependency in the present case would be {Rs.6,500 plus Rs.1,625 (25%) minus Rs.2,708 (one-third) x 12 x 15} = Rs.9,75,060/- as against Rs.11,30,580/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680, 10% escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded under this head. In the present, there are two block periods. Therefore, 20% escalation would have to be awarded, which would come to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- x 20%). In all, Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- plus Rs.24,000/- ) is awarded towards loss of consortium. 15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.33,000/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the actual bills produced by the claimants, which does not call for interference. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 16. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and the same are retained. 17. The points raised in these appeals are answered accordingly. The claimants would be entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.11,87,060/- as against Rs.13,18,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, alongwith interest at 6% per annum, as mentioned in the table below: Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 9,75,060-00 2 Loss of consortium Rs. 1,44,000-00 3 Loss of estate Rs. 20,000-00 4 Medical expenses Rs. 33,000-00 5 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000-00 Total Rs.11,87,060-00 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 18. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The appeals are disposed off. ii) The impugned Judgment & award dated 22nd September 2021 passed in MVC No.4083/2019 by the Tribunal is modified. iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.11,87,060/- (Rupees eleven lakhs eighty-seven thousand and sixty only) as against Rs.13,18,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, alongwith interest at 6% per annum. iv) The balance compensation, if any shall be deposited by the KSRTC with interest at 6% per annum, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any excess amount is already paid/deposited by the KSRTC, the same shall be refunded to KSRTC. v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7797 MFA No. 1385 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 386 of 2022 the claimants upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification. vi) All other terms with regard to deposit, apportionment and release of the compensation amount, are retained. vii) The amount in deposit before this Court, if any shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal alongwith the records. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5