- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102254 OF 2019 (MV) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100094 OF 2020 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.102254/2019: BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC, SIRSI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SIRSI, REP. DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. YASHODHA CHANDRASHEKHAR HARIKANTRA AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O # 82, GUD-KAGAL, TAL. KUMTA-581351. 2. KUMARI NISHAGHA D/O CHANDRASHEKHAR HARIKANTRA AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: MINOR, R/O # 82, GUD-KAGAL, TAL. KUMTA-581351. 3. KUMAR KARTIK S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR HARIKANTRA AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: MINOR, R/O # 82, GUD-KAGAL, TAL. KUMTA-581351. SINCE RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN HIS MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.463/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,70,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION & ETC. IN MFA.CROB.NO.100094/2020: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YASHODHA CHANDRASHEKHAR HARIKANTRA AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O # 82, GUD-KAGAL, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581343. 2. KUMARI NISHAGHA CHANDRASHEKHAR HARIKANTRA AGE: 07 YEARS, OCC: MINOR, R/O # 82, GUD-KAGAL, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581343. 3. KUMAR KARTIK CHANDRASHEKHAR HARIKANTRA AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: MINOR, R/O # 82, GUD-KAGAL, TAL. KUMTA, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581343. SINCE CROSS OBJECTORS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN HIS MOTHER CROSS OBJECTOR NO.1 …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, SIRSI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SIRSI, REP. DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.102254/2019 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.463/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUMTA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 THE MFA AND THE MFA CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) MFA No.102254/2019 filed by the Divisional Controller NWKRTC, Hubballi challenging the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation. MFA Crob No.100094/2020 filed by the claimants seeking for higher compensation. Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 04.02.2019 passed by the Additional MACT, Kumta1 in MVC No.463/2017. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that one Chandrashekhar Narayan Harikantra was proceeding on motorcycle on 24.07.2017 after attending his work. When he reached near Betkuli Cross, he met his colleagues Suresh Mavanna Toregajani and Jaishankar Hanumant Moodangi who were standing near the road. 1 For short, ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 Thereafter, deceased proceeded on his motorcycle towards his house at Gud-Kagal, at that time, the Corporation Bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-1329 came from Kumta side proceeding towards Karwar, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the rider of the motorcycle. As a result sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The jurisdictional Police registered the incident and on completion of the investigation filed chargesheet against the driver of the Corporation Bus. The wife and children of the deceased Chandrashekar filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 seeking for compensation for the accidental death of the deceased Chandrashekhar. It was averred that the deceased was working as a fisher man and also as a mechanic to repair ships. It was further averred that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and he was the only bread earner of the family and sought for award of just compensation. 3. The respondent/Corporation filed objections, denying the aspect of negligence, age, income and avocation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal recorded the evidence. The claimant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked documents at Ex.Ps.1 to 22. The respondent examined RW.1 and did not marked any documentary evidence. The Tribunal on appreciation of the pleading and evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the driver of the Corporation Bus was negligent and directed to pay the compensation. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realization. Being aggrieved, the claimants as well as the Corporation have filed the present appeal and Cross- Objection. 5. Sri.M.K.Soudgar learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in recording the finding that the driver of the Bus was entirely negligent, without properly appreciating the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 ExP.6-spot sketch, which clearly indicates that the deceased rider of the motorcycle was also negligent and he has contributed negligence to the accident in question and liability is required to be shifted to the extent of 25% on the deceased. It is submitted that the Tribunal without any justifiable reasons assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and as per the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA, the income is required to be reassessed at Rs.10,250/- per month. It is further submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads is just and does not call for any interference, hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition filed by the claimants by allowing the appeal filed by the Corporation. 6. Per contra, Sri. Naveen Chatrad learned counsel supports the impugned judgment and award insofar as the finding with regard to the negligence and liability. It is submitted that the claimants examined PW.2, who is the employer of the deceased and he clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, however the Tribunal without any justifiable reason - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 discarded the evidence and assessed the income at Rs.15,000/- per month which is meager. He seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately by adding 40% under the head of loss of future prospects. He seeks to award the compensation under the head of conventional heads and consortium by adding 10% escalation to it as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2 and seeks to allow the Cross-Objection by dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation. 7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation, learned counsel for the Cross-Objector, meticulously perused the material available on record including the trial Court records. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The only point that would fall for consideration is, whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference? 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 9. Answer to the above point would be partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative for the following reasons; The pleading and material available on record indicate that in a road traffic accident dated 24.07.2017 the husband of claimant No.1 and the father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, the deceased Chandrashekhar has sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The deceased was aged about 39 years as on the date of accident and was a fisherman by avocation. It is also pleaded that he used to do mechanic work to repair ships during the season. In support of the claim, the wife of the deceased and his employer has been examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. Tribunal taking note of the pleading and evidence on record has recorded a clear finding at para No.12 of the impugned judgment that the accident is caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus. 10. We have meticulously gone through the sketch at Ex.P.6, charge sheet material and oral testimony of PW.2. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 The aforesaid evidence clearly indicate that the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased Charndrashekhar was proceeding towards Kumta on the left side of the road and the Corporation Bus was proceeding from Kumta to Karwar side. Sketch clearly indicates that the driver of the Bus took his Bus on the extreme right side and dashed to the motorcycle, resulted in the said accident. The Investigation Officer after completion of the investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of the Bus. In addition, PW.2-an eye-witness to the incident clearly deposed that the deceased just before the accident spoke to him and thereafter he has proceeded further at that time, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver, the accident took place. Taking note of the aforesaid evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has fully justified in recording the finding that the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver and accordingly saddled the liability on it. We do not find any error or perversity in the aforesaid finding, calling for interference in the appeal filed by the Corporation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 11. In so far as the quantum of compensation, admittedly, the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to assess the income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the deceased was a fisherman and a mechanic by avocation. Taking note of the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA the income generally we assess at Rs.10,250/- for the accident of the year 2017, considering the deceased as an unskilled labour. In the case on hand, the claimants specifically pleaded that the deceased was the fisherman and also a mechanic. The said evidences is also corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 who has deposed that he is the employer of the deceased and he used to pay a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the said statement is not supported with any documentary evidence. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal taking note of the avocation of the deceased has rightly come to a conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, we do not want to interfere with the said finding. The deceased was aged about 39 years. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an addition of 40% of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is reassessed as under; Rs.15,000/- + 40% x 12 x 15 - 1/3 = Rs.25,20,000/- 12. The claimants are wife and children of the deceased hence, they are entitled for consortium at Rs.44,000/- each as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others3 and also Rs.16,500/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards the transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others referred supra. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation at the rate of 9% per annum. In our view, the same is required to be modified at 6% per annum taking note of the prevailing rate of interest by the nationalized bank on the term deposits. 3 2018 ACJ 2782 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 13. The claimants are entitled for the following modified compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum: 1 Loss of dependency Rs.25,20,000/- 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each to claimants are 3 in number) Rs.1,32,000/- 3 Transportation of dead body and Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 4 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Total Rs.26,85,000/- 14. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.26,85,000/- as against Rs.19,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Both the appeals are allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment & award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the respondent Nos.1 to 3-claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.26,85,000/- as against Rs.19,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10626-DB MFA No. 102254 of 2019 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100094 of 2020 iii. The aforesaid compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iv. Appellant/Corporation shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith. vi. The apportionment and disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal. vii. Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. viii. Draw modified award accordingly. ix. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE PJ, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35