- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2306 MFA No. 21015 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21015 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. N.W.K.R.T.C., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030. (OWNER OF THE BUS) 2. N.W.K.R.T.C., SELF INSURANCE FUND, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SYED R.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI @ KUSUMAVATI W/O. PRABHAKARSA METRANI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SRI. RAJESH S/O. PRABHAKARSA METRANI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 3. KUM. RAJESHWARI D/O. PRABHAKARSA METRANI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O: KUMBAR ONI, GANESHPETH, HUBLI-580020. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2306 MFA No. 21015 of 2013 4. SRI YALLAPPA S/O. MALLESHWAPPA DEVARGUDDA, AGE: MAJOR, (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN) OCC: NWKRTC BUS DRIVER CITY DEPOT NO.2, HUBLI-580020. 5. SMT. ROOPA W/O. MOHAN LADWA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AJANTA KHANAVALI, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. ANITA W/O. SADANANDSA KALBURGI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: UNKAL-580026, TQ: HUBLI. 7. SMT. RENUKA W/O. VISHWANATH KALBURGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : STATION ROAD, HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.G.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 AND R7 – APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED; R5 AND R6 – NOTICE SERVED.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.06.2012 IN M.V.C. NO.416/2008 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HUBLI AND DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2306 MFA No. 21015 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the KSRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 30.06.2012, passed in MVC No.416/2008, by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubli, questioning the liability fastened on the driverof the KSRTC bus and to reduce the compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on20.05.2008, at about 07.30 a.m., the deceased Prabhakarsa S/o.Tukaramsa Metrani was proceeding at CBT, Hubballi, by walk near platform No.4 and at that time the driver of KSRTC bus No.KA-25/F-1413 proceeded from platform No.4 towards Marathagalli with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased, due to which the deceased Prahabkarsa had sustained heavy injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, upon the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, the tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and perused the material placed before the Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2306 MFA No. 21015 of 2013 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/KSRTC submitted that the tribunal has attributed entire negligence against the driver of the bus. But, due to deceased died himself, the driver of the KSRTC bus has not caused the accident. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants justified the judgment and award passed by the trial Court. 6. Upon perusing the FIR, complaint, charge sheet, spot panchanama, all prove the fact that the deceased was a pedestrian and was hit by KSRTC bus. The driver of the KSRTC bus has adduced evidence as RW.1 but quite naturally he being the driver of KSRTC bus has deposed in favour of him. But the police documents prove the fact that the KSRTC bus driver had caused the accident. Since the deceased was a pedestrian, negligence could not be attributed on the part of the deceased. Therefore, in this regard, the tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion hat the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2306 MFA No. 21015 of 2013 7. The claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of compensation. Therefore the compensation awarded by the tribunal is considered to be correct, just and proper. Therefore the appeal filed by the NWKRTC is liable to be dismissed on both counts i.e., negligence as well as quantum. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32