- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7058 OF 2018(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, MYSURU CITY DEPOT-1, BANNIMANTAP ROAD, MYSURU-570 001. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE LOKESH R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 2. KUM. HARSHITHA L K D/O LATE LOKESH R, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. MASTER PRUTHWIN L K S/O LATE LOKESH R, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 ARE MINOR HENCE A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN IS FILED) R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1 4. SRI RAMASHETTY S/O LATE KALASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 5. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1-5 ARE R/AT K HEMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-577 001. 6. SRI. VISHWANATH T.V., S/O VEERABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, BADGE NO.12898, CITY I DEPOT, RESIDENT OF TIPPATUR VILLAGE, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS NAGAIAH C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1; V/O DATED 18.03.2025 NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.248/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,87,500/- AFTER DEDUCTING THE INTERIM COMPENSATION RS.50,000/- FROM 15,37,500/- WITH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant –Corporation aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2018 passed in MVC No.248/2017 on the file of the Principal Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, by which, the Tribunal while allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents being legal heirs of deceased Sri.R.Lokesh, has granted compensation of Rs.14,87,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of order till its realization. 2. Brief facts of the case are that; a). On 02.09.2016 at about 6.30 p.m. near Marati Kyathanahalli Gate on Mysuru- Gaddige main road when the deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 registration No. KA-02-AQ-3732, driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-09-F-3977 came at high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed against motor cycle of the deceased resulting in he sustaining grievous injuries and succumbing to the same at the spot. b) Thereupon, a claim petition is filed by the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.61,75,000/- on the premise that deceased who was aged about 38 years was hale and healthy working as a plumber, drawing monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. That he was contributing entire earning to the family and due to the untimely demise of the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, claimants were put to financial and emotional distress. C) Despite service of notice, respondent No.1 has remained absent. Respondent No.2-Corporation filed statement of objections disputing maintainability of the claim petition and denying the averments made in the claim petition including the age of the deceased. It is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 contended that accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the deceased and not on the part of driver of the offending bus. That respondent – Corporation had already paid Rs.15,000/- as interim compensation to the claimants. As such, sought for dismissal of the appeal. d) Tribunal framed issues and wife of the deceased, the claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and exhibited 8 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, one Sri.Vishwanath T.V has been examined as RW.1 and no documentary evidence are marked on their behalf. On appreciation of evidence the Tribunal has found that accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus resulting in death of the deceased. Taking into consideration the age, notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- and granting a compensation under conventional heads, the Tribunal held that claimants are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,37,500/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. Being - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 aggrieved by the same, appellant-Corporation is before this Court. 3. Sri. F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation submitted that Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- in the absence of any documentary evidence, it ought to have been at Rs.9,500/- p.m. as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He further submits that the rate of interest imposed by the Tribunal is at the rate of 9% which is on the higher side. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal by reducing compensation. 4. Per contra, Sri. Vikas Nagaiah C, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal submits that monthly income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is at Rs.10,500/- which is just and proper and same does not require any reduction. However, he submits Tribunal ought to have granted compensation under other conventional heads which have not been granted in the instant case. He submits that though no - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 appeal or counter appeal is filed, the Respondent/claimants are entitled for compensation under other conventional heads. 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. The twin questions that arise for consideration is regarding negligence and quantum of compensation. The accident in question is not in dispute. Age of the deceased being 38 years and Respondents/claimants being legal heirs of deceased is also not in dispute. 7. As per the claim averments the accident had taken placed at about 6.30 p.m. on 02.09.2016 near Marati Kyathanahalli Gate on Mysuru-Gaddige main road when deceased was proceeding on a motor cycle, the driver of the appellant-KSRTC Bus had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against the motor cycle resulting in his death. 8. Admittedly charge sheet has been filed by jurisdictional Police under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Copies of the said documents has been furnished by the respondents. Ex.P5 is the MV report which indicates that the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal at Para 9 and 10 of the judgment and award has taken into consideration oral and documentary evidence led in by the parties and also taken into consideration of the fact that accident had occurred at spot where the width of road is stated to be 16 ft. having foot path on either sides. On perusal and on appreciation of the records, the Tribunal has concluded that the if driver of the offending bus had taken proper care he could have avoided the accident. 9. In the cross –examination, RW.1 has admitted that the charge sheet has been filed and criminal proceedings against him are on. In the light of aforesaid oral and documentary evidence and in the absence of any contra evidence produced, the reasoning, finding and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal at para 10 read in the light of spot sketch would indicate that no error can be found with regard to appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal. As such, the grounds urged on the question of negligence cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 10. Adverting to the issue with regard to quantum of compensation, though in the claim petition the respondents/claimants have contended that the deceased was earning Rs.10,500/- p.m., no evidence in this regard has been produced. In the absence of any documentary evidence the chart prepared by the KSLSA is relied upon. Since accident is of the year 2016 the notional income of the deceased is determined as Rs.9,500/- p.m. 11. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 since the deceased was aged about 38 years, addition of 40% of income is to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the total income of the deceased per annum would be (Rs.9,500 X 40%= Rs.3,800+Rs.9,500= Rs.13,300 X 12=) Rs.1,59,600/-. 12. The deceased has left behind 5 dependents, as such 1/4th of his income is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Age of the deceased being 38 years, 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 multiplier 15 is applied. Therefore, loss of dependency would be (Rs.1,59,600 X 3/4X15=) Rs.17,95,500 /-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 14. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram 2 and as clarified by the judgment in the case of United Insurance Company Ltd., Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others3, the claimant No.1 being the wife is entitled for loss of spousal consortium of Rs.40,000/-, claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the children are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each and claimant Nos. 4 and 5 being the parents are entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 15. In addition they are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 2 2018 (18) SCC 130 3 AIR 2020 SC 3076 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 16. The claim having been made in the year 2017 and an award having been made in the year 2018. Amount awarded under the conventional heads is required to be revised at 10% for every block of three years. Since two blocks of three years have been completed, the compensation towards consortium, loss of estate and funeral and transportation expenses shall be escalated by 20%. Thus, respondents/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation. 17. Though there is no specific appeal or cross appeal filed by the respondents/claimants, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NAGAPPA VS. GURUDAYALA SINGH AND OTHERS4 followed in the case of MEENA DEVI VS. NUNU CHAND MAHTO ALIAS NEMCHAND MAHTO AND OTEHRS5, just compensation which is reasonable under the facts and circumstance of matter is required to be granted, notwithstanding there being no specific claim in this regard. Since the facts narrated above and law applicable entitles the respondents/claimants for enhanced rate 4 (2003) 2 SCC 274 5 (2023) 1 SCC 204 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 of compensation under conventional heads, the same is granted. 18. Since the appellant-Corporation has paid *Rs.50,000/- towards interim compensation, the same needs to be reduced from the enhanced compensation. Therefore the respondents/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of **Rs.4,84,000/- (Rs.5,34,000- *Rs.50,000) as under; Sl.No. Head Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.17,95,500 2. Towards loss of consortium Rs. 2,40,000 3 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000 4 Towards funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses Rs. 18,000 Total Rs.20,71,500 Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs.15,37,500/- Rs. 5,34,000/- Less Interim compensation paid *Rs. 50,000/- Enhanced by *Rs. 4,84,000/- 19. As regards the rate of interest the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., the same is reduced to 6% p.a. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (1) Appeal is partly allowed. *Retyped and replaced vide court order dated 29.04.2025 ** Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.07.2025 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13123-DB MFA No. 7058 of 2018 (2) The respondents/claimants are awarded enhanced compensation of **Rs.4,84,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (3) The said amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (4) On such deposit the Tribunal shall release the same to the respondents/claimants digitally on furnishing relevant documents. (5) Registry shall transmit the TCRs to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 ** Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.07.2025