- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101609 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC BELAGAVI, REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AKTAR W/O. SAMEER AHMED SHAIKH, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 1ST CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. 2. MOHAMMED ARYAAN S/O. SAMEER AHMED SHAIKH, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. 1ST CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. 3. UMME HANI D/O. SAMEER AHMED SHAIKH, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 R/O. 1ST CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. SINCE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR DAUGHTER HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1. 4. ABDUL KHADAR S/O. MOHAMMED YOUSUF SHAIKH, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. 1ST CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. 5. BIBI BATOOL W/O. ABDUL KHADAR SHAIKH, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. 1ST CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE M.V.C.NO.1025/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2024 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Yash Nadakarni who represents Sri.Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel on record for respondents No.1 to 5. 2. The Corporation against which liability is fixed to pay compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) through orders in M.V.C. No.1025/2023 dated 27.01.2024 is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly regarding the aspect of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus which is involved in the accident. And secondly in respect of the quantum that is awarded as compensation. Learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 counsel contends that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of deceased Sameer Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’ for brevity). Learned counsel submits that the driver of the bus was not at fault and though such a plea was taken and was established before the Tribunal, the Tribunal fastened entire liability against the appellant with an observation that the accident occurred due to negligence on part of the driver of the appellant. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have attributed contributory negligence on part of the deceased as well. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 on the other hand is that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on part of the driver of the appellant and therefore the Tribunal fastened the liability against the appellant only. 5. The manner of happening of accident as projected by respondents No.1 to 5 before the Tribunal is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 that on 27.04.2023 at about 09.00 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle and was riding the motorcycle at a moderate speed, the driver of the appellant's bus bearing registration number KA-22/F-1873 came in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and the driver of the bus lost control over his vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and thereby caused the accident. 6. It is not in dispute that basing on the contents of Ex.P.1-FIR, Police started investigating into the case and finally laid Ex.P.7-Charge Sheet holding that the accident solely occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant. There is an observation of the Tribunal at para 13 of the impugned order regarding filing of charge sheet against the driver of the appellant as well as the appellant conducting departmental enquiry against its driver. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to state as to why the enquiry report was not filed before the Tribunal. Admittedly, as per the investigation done by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 Police, entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the appellant only. No convincing material is produced by the appellant to show that the deceased contributed for the accident. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in fastening entire liability upon the appellant. 7. Coming to the sum that is awarded as compensation, learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/- per month which is erroneous. Learned counsel states that no evidence whatsoever was produced by respondents No.1 to 5 regarding the occupation and earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident. Learned counsel contends that for the relevant period that is for the year 2023, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking the notional income as Rs.15,250/- per month for settlement of claims and therefore the said figure ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 8. Learned counsel who represents for respondents No.1 to 5 did not raise any objection for taking the notional income as Rs.15,250/- per month. Therefore, taking the notional income as Rs.15,250/- per month and without disturbing other parameters that is adding 25% of the earnings towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th of the earnings towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased which he would have incurred for himself had he been alive and applying the appropriate multiplier ‘14’, the compensation which the respondents No.1 to 5 are entitled to receive under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is as follows: Heads Amount in Rs. Notional monthly income 15,250.00 Annual income 1,83,000.00 On adding 25% towards future prospects 2,28,750.00 On deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses 1,71,562.50 Loss of dependency, on applying appropriate multiplier ‘14’ 24,01,875.00 9. Thus, respondents No.1 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.24,01,875/- as compensation towards loss of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 dependency. However the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,20,000/- under the said head. Therefore, the amount granted in excess is Rs.1,18,125/- (Rs.25,20,000 – Rs.24,01,875). Hence, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi through orders in M.V.C. No.1025/2023 dated 27.01.2024 is reduced by Rs.1,18,125/-. (iii) Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14457 MFA No. 101609 of 2024 Interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18