- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7099 OF 2015 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6263 OF 2015 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 7099/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA S/O ADEPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. SRI.K.M.MAHESH S/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.6/142, A.R.RAPPAM, AMIDALAGANDI, MADAKASIRA, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BANGALORE-27 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3623/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 6263/2015 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, DOUBLE ROAD, BENGALURU-27 REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA S/O ADEPPA AGED 41 YEARS 2. SRI K.M. MAHESH S/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.6/142, A.R.RAPPAM, AMIDALAGANDI, MADAKASIRA, ANANTHAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH-515 301 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.05.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3623/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.8,80,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.3623/2014 dated 28.05.2015 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, both the KSRTC as well as the claimants are before this Court. The claimants' appeal is MFA.No.7099/2015 and the KSRTC's appeal is MFA.No.6263/2015. 2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of deceased in the accident that took place on 10.07.2014. 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 10.07.2014 at about 8:45 p.m., the deceased Nagalakshmi was standing on the side of the road near Anchepalya to cross the road, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and she fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was taken to the hospital and later after four days she succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 the deceased was working as a coolie and earning an amount of Rs.300/- per day. 4. It is the case of the KSRTC that the accident had taken place because of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and without looking at this aspect, the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the KSRTC bus. When it comes to the liability, the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, is that the Police have registered the case against the driver of the bus and after completing the investigation, they have filed the charge sheet and further on perusal of Ex.P.3 i.e., hand sketch, it appears that, at the spot, the road was proceeding from Western side to Eastern side and the bus was proceeding from Western side to Eastern side and the accident has occurred at the edge of the Northern side of the road. Considering the fact the trial court is of the opinion that if at all RW.1 has taken care and caution and drive the bus in a slow manner, then he could have avoided the accident and held that the accident has happened because of the negligence of the driver and held that the KSRTC is liable to pay the compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 5. The Tribunal had considered the income at Rs.6,000/- per month and 1/3rd was deducted and by applying the multiplier of 16 and considering the age at 35 years had granted compensation as per the table given below: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 7,68,000/- 2. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 25,000/- 3. Loss of consortium : Rs. 20,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses : Rs. 30,000/- 5. Medical expenses : Rs. 87,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 9,30,000/- 6. Learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits that there is a wall alongside the road and the deceased has crossed that wall and she came on to the road and the accident has happened. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the accident has happened because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal had considered the husband and son as dependent and he submits that the husband is not dependent on the wife. It is also stated that the age has to be considered as 38 years as per the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 inquest report and the multiplier has to be taken at 15 instead of 16. It is submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. It is further submitted that interest was granted at the rate of 9% p.a. and the same has to be reduced to 6% p.a. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Court had rightly held that the negligence is on the part of the driver and when it comes to the compensation, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month instead of Rs.6,000/- and future prospects were not considered. It is submitted that as per the post-mortem report, the age of the deceased is 35 years and the Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of 16. He submits that even on the conventional heads also, the amount that is granted by the Tribunal is not appropriate and it needs to be enhanced. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First, coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, this Court has perused Ex.P.3 i.e., hand sketch and the sketch clearly shows that the bus was on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 the left side of the road and there is a wall alongside the National Highway. The width of the road is 36 ft and the accident had happened within 5 ft from the wall. Looking at Ex.P.3, this Court is of the view that there is negligence on the part of the deceased and the Tribunal had failed to consider the same. In view of the same, the contributory negligence is apportioned at 25% on the deceased and 75% on the driver of the KSRTC bus. 9. Then coming to the compensation, this Court is not able to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel that the husband and the son are not the dependents on the deceased. In case of death of the husband, the Court is never considering the fact whether the wife is working or not. In all those cases, the Court is considering the wife and the children as the dependents and the same analogy will apply even in a case of death of wife also. Hence, this Court is considering both the husband and the son as the dependents and 1/3rd has to be deducted. Then coming to the income, according to the claimants, the deceased was working as a coolie and earning an amount of Rs.300/- and it comes to Rs.9,000/- per month. As there is no evidence in that regard, as the accident has - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 taken place in the year 2014, this Court is taking the income at Rs.8,500/- per month. The future prospects at 40% would come to an amount of Rs.3,400/-, which comes to an amount of Rs.11,900/- (Rs.8,500+Rs.3,400). As there are two dependents, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards the personal expenses i.e., Rs.3,966/-. Then the contribution to the family would be an amount of Rs.7,933/- per month. Hence, loss of dependency would come to an amount of Rs.15,23,136/- (Rs.7,933x12x16). Towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.88,000/- (Rs.44,000x2) is granted. Towards funeral expenses, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.87,000/- towards the medical expenses and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 10. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 11. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of dependency : Rs. 7,68,000/- 15,23,136/- 2. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 25,000/- 00/- 3. Loss of consortium : Rs. 20,000/- 88,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses : Rs. 30,000/- 36,000/- 5. Medical expenses : Rs. 87,000/- 87,000/- 6. Legal Expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 9,30,000/- 17,44,136/- Enhancement : Rs. 8,14,136/- 12. It is submitted that already the KSRTC has paid interim compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, from the total amount of Rs.17,44,136/-, if Rs.50,000/- is deducted, the compensation would come to Rs.16,94,136/-. As this Court has fixed the contributory negligence at 25% on the deceased, the same needs to be deducted from the loss of dependency i.e., Rs.15,23,136/-. Then it comes to an amount of Rs.3,80,784/-. If the same is deducted from Rs.16,94,136/-, what is payable by the KSRTC to the claimant is an amount of Rs.13,13,352/-. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 13. Accordingly, MFA.No.7099/2015 filed by the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.9,30,000/- to Rs.13,13,352/-. The KSRTC is liable to pay the compensation. 14. MFA.No.6263/2015 filed by the KSRTC is partly allowed by reducing the interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The KSRTC shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. v. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. vi. No costs. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15992 MFA No. 7099 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 6263 of 2015 vii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5