- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7566 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2190 OF 2017 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 7566/2015 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA @ SIDDALINGAMMA W/O LATE M GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. GOVARDHAN S/O LATE M GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. NAGESH S/O LATE M GOPALIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS APPELLANT NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPTD. BY THEIR MOTHER SIDDAGANGAMMA @ SIDDALINGAMMA, THE NATURAL GUARDIAN. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 AND: THE DEPOT MANAGER ANDHRAPRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHITTOOR - II ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.6.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4894/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 2190/2017 BETWEEN: THE DEPOT MANAGER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHITTOOR -II, ANDHRA PRADESH NOW REP BY ITS MANAGIN DIRECTOR A P S R T C., MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHARA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 AND: 1. SMT SIDDAGANGAMMA @ SIDDALINGAMMA W/O LATE M GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI GOVARDHAN S/O LATE M GOPALAIAH , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. SRI NAGESH S/O LATE M GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KODAGALAHATTI, HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE 562 157. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4894/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, (SCCH-8), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs. 25,80,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) These appeals are as against the Judgment and Award dated 26.06.2015 in MVC No.4894/2006 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The claimants' appeal is in MFA No.7566/2015 and the APSRTC's appeal is in MFA No.2190/2017. The claimants and the contesting aforesaid Transport Corporation are referred respectively as 'the claimants' and 'the Corporation.' 2. The Tribunal's judgment is after this Court interfered with its earlier Judgment and Award dated 04.08.2009 in MFA No.3159/2010 and MFA No.1521/2010. In these appeals, the claimants and the Corporation had called in question the Tribunal's decision to hold the Corporation liable to pay - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 compensation and calling in question the quantum of compensation awarded. This Court has disposed of these appeals on 09.07.2014 remitting the claim petition back to the Tribunal for reconsideration with liberty to both the claimants and the Corporation to file application to lead additional evidence. The following questions are to be considered for disposal of the present appeals: [a] Whether the Tribunal's finding that the Corporation's bus is involved in the accident is based on the evidence on record, [b] Whether the Tribunal has erred in its finding on Sri Gopalaiah being negligent and responsible for the accident. [c] Whether this Court must interfere with the amount of compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.25,80,800/- to the claimants, who are the wife and two sons of Sri M. Gopalaiah along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 till realisation. This Court, in the present proceedings, has granted an interim order on 05.10.2018 calling upon the Corporation to deposit 50% of the compensation with the Tribunal while stipulating that this amount be released to the claimants after ensuring their identity. It is stated that the claimants, in terms of this order, have withdrawn the amount in deposit, and it is also stated that originally the parents of Sri M.Gopalaiah were also the claimants, but with their demise during the earlier proceedings only the claimants have continued the proceedings. A Brief statement of facts: 4. Sri M. Gopalaiah has died on 26.02.2006 because of the injuries suffered in a road accident on 20.02.2006. The accident is when he was returning from Devanahalli on his motorcycle. He is shifted to Sri Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bengaluru where he was an inpatient for 6 days before he - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 breathed his last, and after his death, the first information was filed with the Jurisdictional Police on 27.02.2006 at 7.30 a.m. The Jurisdictional Police, based on the information filed by a certain Ravi, have completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the Corporation's driver for rash and negligent driving. The Corporation's driver stood trial, and he is convicted by the learned Magistrate by the judgment dated 26.02.2009. However, in the appeal filed against such judgment in Criminal Appeal No.24/2009, the Appellate Court [the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II at Bangalore Rural District] has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction. 4.1 Sri M. Gopalaiah was working as a Senior Production Assistant with M/s Astra Zeneca Private Limited and he was being paid a sum of Rs.16,000/- per month between October 2005 and February 2006 and in February, apart from this salary, he is also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 paid certain arrears. Sri. Gopalaiah was aged 42 years as of the date of the accident. The medical records indicate that he died only because of the injuries suffered in the accident. 5. The claimants contend that the first claimant [his widow] was also travelling with Sri. M. Gopalaiah at the time of the accident. They also contend that Sri. M. Gopalaiah suffered injuries in the chest and was bleeding from the ears and that the first claimant suffered certain minor injuries on her forearm and lower limbs. The claimants assert that both of them were shifted to M/s Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bangalore and that the first claimant received some minor treatment. 6. The Corporation contests the claim petition asserting that its vehicle is not at all involved in the accident and its vehicle is falsely implicated because of the collusion between the police and the claimants. The claimants had examined as witnesses, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 even before the remand, the first claimant [Smt. Siddagangamma] and an employee with M/s Astra Zeneca Private Limited as PWs.1 and 2. The Corporation had examined the driver [Sri.P.Lakshmana Reddy] prior to the remand. After the remand, the claimants have amended the claim petition to bolster their assertion that the first claimant was on the deceased’s pillion at the time of the accident. 7. The first claimant [Smt. Siddagangamma] is once again examined on 16.05.2015 and she has reiterated her case [a] that she was travelling with her husband on the pillion at the time of the accident, [b] that she has received some treatment for the superficial injuries suffered, while stating that she is an eyewitness to the accident, and [c] that she and her husband were taken to M/s Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital by one Ramesh and Nagesh. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 In the cross-examination she has admitted that both Sri Nagesh and Sri Ramesh are known to her while also speaking about the details of the police investigation as known to her. On remand, the Corporation has examined Sri A.V. Reddy, a spare driver who was travelling in the bus on the fateful day. This witness has stated that the deceased must have hurt himself because of his own negligence and that the Corporation's bus was not involved in any accident. 8. The Tribunal, while answering the Issue on whether the Gopalaiah succumbed to the injuries because of the actionable negligence by the driver of the Corporation's bus, has opined that the claimants have proved their case that the driver of the Corporation's bus, Sri P. Lakshma Reddy [RW.1], was rash and negligent. The Tribunal has elaborately referred to the police documents observing that these documents remain unchallenged and that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 claimants' case is corroborated by the conviction of the afore driver concerned by the learned Magistrate. The Tribunal has also opined that the evidence of the two drivers is of no help to the Corporation. 9. Sri D. Vijayakumar, the learned counsel for the Corporation, submits that this Court must first examine whether the Tribunal is indeed justified in its conclusion that the Corporation's bus was involved in the accident, and the learned counsel submits that he must be permitted to argue, in the alternative, that the deceased is also responsible for the accident. The rival submissions on the involvement of the Corporation’s Bus: 10. Sri D. Vijayakumar relies upon the following circumstances to substantiate his case. [a] The first information is filed by a certain Ravi and he is not examined as a witness. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 [b] The accident is on 20.02.2006, but the first information is filed only on 27.02.2006 after the death of Sri Gopalaiah on 26.02.2006 without an explanation for the delay. [c] The first claimant [Smt. Siddagangamma] asserts that she was on the pillion of Sri Gopalaiah and that she was also injured in the accident and has received certain initial treatment for the injuries suffered at Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, and her husband had to be hospitalized as an inpatient in ICU. However, no document is produced to show that Smt. Siddagangamma has received treatment in the Hospital. [d] Smt. Siddagangamma did not at the first instance take up her case that she was travelling on the pillion with the deceased Gopalaiah. [e] The Corporation's driver is convicted of being rash and negligent in driving and causing the accident, but he is acquitted by the Appellate Court. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 The learned counsel emphasises that these circumstances demonstrate that there is a collusion between the claimants and the police to implicate the Corporation’s vehicle. 10.1 Sri Shripad V Shastri, the learned counsel for the claimants, canvasses that this Court while disposing of the earlier appeals on 09.07.2014, has not only reserved liberty to lead additional evidence but has also observed that all contentions are left open and as such the claimants' case that the first claimant was with her deceased husband at the time of the accident must be considered in the light of the evidence that is brought on record. The learned counsel argues that the first claimant is consistent not only in the present proceedings but even in the criminal proceedings in contending that she was with the deceased on the pillion at the time of the accident. The other eyewitnesses to the accident are - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 examined in the criminal proceedings and they have also corroborated the first claimant's testimony. 10.2 Sri Shripad V Shastri further contends that there cannot be any doubt about the involvement of the Corporation's bus because the vehicle is inspected by the concerned as part of investigation and the IMV Report which is part of the record is also produced as an exhibit; that this Report shows that the bus was damaged on its left side; that this document is not contested and the Corporation has also not offered any explanation. The learned counsel also relies upon certain discrepancies in the evidence of the two drivers to contend that the Corporation's case about involvement of the vehicle remains completely unsubstantiated, and as such, there is no reason for interference with the Tribunal's finding on the involvement of the vehicle. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 Reasoning and conclusion on the involvement of the vehicle: 11. The records are perused in the light of these rival submissions. The first thing that stands out on going through the evidence on record, including the evidence in the criminal proceedings, is that Smt. Siddagangamma is consistent in stating that she was with her husband on the pillion at the time of the accident. The first claimant is examined in the criminal proceedings as PW.2 on 10.07.2008 [this is before the date of remand]. She is certain without equivocating that she was travelling with her husband, Sri Gopalaiah, on the motorcycle at the time of the accident. 11.1 Sri Nagesh, who is also examined by the police and whose statement is recorded in the Inquest Report, is examined as PW3 in the criminal proceedings. He has stated that he has seen the accident, both the first claimant and her deceased - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 husband had suffered injuries and they were shifted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital in an ambulance. The Medico Legal Register with the aforesaid hospital is marked as Exhibit P.19 in the present proceedings. The history of the accident is recorded as the patient was travelling on a two- wheeler and the other vehicle was a bus. 11.2 This Court must opine that if these two witnesses have also specifically stated that the Corporation's bus was involved in the accident, the entry in the Medico Legal Register is also vital in indicating whether the Corporation’s Bus was involved in the accident. Next, the IMV Report remains unchallenged, and as is pointed out by Sri.Shripad V Shastri, none of the Corporation’s witnesses have explained the damages to the bus. 11.3 This Court must next observe that the drivers of the Corporation, who would have been the best persons to speak about when the bus left - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 Bangalore towards Hyderabad and whether it was possible for the bus to be at the place of accident, are not consistent in their testimony while both admitting that they did not leave Bangalore as per schedule. The first driver says they left half an hour late, and the next driver says they left one hour late i.e., between 07.30pm and 08.30 pm. These also gain importance in the light of the fact that the Corporation, which ought to maintain trip sheets and such documents to record the departure of the vehicle, has produced no document. 11.4 The Criminal Courts have recorded that the defence, meaning the driver of the Corporation bus, does not deny the accident and that he has tried to contend that the negligence was on behalf of the driver. Smt. Siddagangamma is categorical that she has suffered superficial injuries and has received only initial treatment; that she was looking after her husband in the hospital and that - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 she remained with her husband in the hospital until he died on 26.02.2006. In the light of these circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to opine that there is any collusion in mentioning the Corporation's bus because the first information is filed with the police after Gopalaiah’s death, or because the claimants have failed to produce the medical records relating to the first claimant. The rival submissions on the negligence of Sri.Gopalaiah 12. Sri D. Vijaykumar submits that the claimants' case is that the Bangalore- Bellary road was under repair and that one flank of the road was closed with provision for two-way vehicular movement on the other flank. The spot sketch is produced as part of the police records that are marked on behalf of the Corporation. The learned counsel emphasizes that this Court must draw an adverse inference against the claimants because they - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 have deliberately withheld this document knowing that if the document is brought on record, the negligence in the deceased would be demonstrated. 12.1 Sri D. Vijaykumar canvasses that the accident according to the claimants is with the bus and the two-wheeler coming from the opposite directions and that if the deceased was on his side of the road, the damage to the bus should have been on the right side but it is on the left-hand side. This would show that the deceased was on the wrong side of the road. Sri Shripad V Shastri, on the other hand, points out that the sketch is part of Exhibit P-Series and the claimants have not withheld this document. However, the question of negligence, if any, by the deceased Gopalaiah must be examined in the light of this document. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 Reasoning and conclusion on the question of negligence: 13. The sketch and the IMV report show that the bus is damaged on the left-hand side and if there was an accident with the two vehicles coming from opposite side and with the deceased being on his on the left-hand side of the road, the damage to the bus should have been on the right and not on the left. This is a very material circumstance, but the significance of this evidence in assessing the extent of negligence by Sri Gopalaiah must be examined in the light of the other evidence. 13.1 The only other evidence is that of the first claimant. This claimant's evidence does not help in deciding on the extent of contributory negligence but with the spot sketch and the IMV report overwhelmingly showing that the accident is to the left of the bus with the deceased coming from the opposite side and the accident is late in the evening - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 between a two-wheeler and a bus, this Court opines that a greater percentage of liability must be fastened on the driver of the bus. On a holistic reading of the circumstances, this Court opines that it would be just and reasonable on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, to assess the negligence between the driver of the Corporation bus and the deceased in the ratio of 75:25. On the quantum of compensation: 14. The Tribunal has assessed loss of dependency with addition towards future prospects and deduction towards personal expenses based on the evidence that is let in on the deceased's income and applying the multiplier, based on the admitted age of the deceased. Sri Ramaraju B, who is examined as PW.2, is categorical in his evidence that the deceased was being paid Rs.16,000/- per month for the period between October 2005 and February - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 2006 and that certain addition was made towards unpaid arrears. 14.1 If this is the evidence based on documentary evidence such as Pay Slips, Exhibit P.19, this Court finds nothing wrong in the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased at Rs.16,077/-, providing for addition at 30% towards future prospects. The Tribunal is also justified in deducting one-third of such income towards personal expenditure and capitalising with the multiplier of '14' to arrive at loss of dependency. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and another sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. This would be commensurate with what would be admissible as loss of consortium not just to the claimants but also to the deceased's parents, who have now died. Therefore, there is no reason for enhancement even under this head. The - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards other heads [Loss of estate and Funeral expenses] with interest at 8% per annum. In the circumstances, this Court does not find that it results in any unjust claim. In the light of the afore, the following ORDER [A] The appeal by the Corporation in MFA No. 2190/2017 is allowed in part holding that the Corporation will be liable to pay 75% of the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 8% per annum. The Corporation shall deposit 75% of the amount along with the interest as aforesaid within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. [B] The claimants' appeal in MFA No.7566/2015 is disposed of. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26305-DB MFA No. 7566 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 2190 of 2017 [C] The amount in deposit, if any, in the Corporation's appeal shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SA,NV