- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102618 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104402 OF 2017 IN MFA NO.102618/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, COOLIE, 2. SMT. REKULAKUNTA GANGAMMA @ GANGAMMA W/O. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE. 3. REKULAKUNTA SUBHAKAR @ SUBHAKAR S/O. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGE 20 YEARS, STUDENT. 4. SRI. R. GURUMURTHY S/O. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED 26 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER ALL ARE R/O. JYOTHI KOLI TREE FORM, OPP. MAHALAKSHMI TEMPLE, AIR PORT ROAD, BALLARI-583101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. SAMBAIAH P.S S/O. PEDDA SUBBAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC:DRVER OF THE APSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP-29/A-1048, R/O. NO.4/19. HARIJANAWADA, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.05 15:32:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 THIPIREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, PENDILIMARRY MANDAL YSR, KADAPA DISTRICT-A.P-420001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSTRC, OWNER OF THE APSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP-29/Z-1048, KADAPA DIVISION, KADAPA, A.P-420001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARUNA DESHAPNDE, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1049/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-III, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, IN MFA NO.104402/2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC, OWNER OF THE APSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.AP.29/Z-1048 KADAPA DIVISION, KADAPA, A.P. NOW REP BY REGIONAL MANAGER KADAPA, A.P. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA AGED 47 YEARS, COOLIE, (FATHER OF THE DECEASED- REKULAKUNTA SHIVA PRASAD @ SHIVA PRASAD) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 2. SMT. REKULAKUNTA GANGAMMA @ GANGAMMA W/O. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED REKULAKUNTA SHIVA PRASAD @ SHIVA PRASAD). 3. MINOR REKULAKUNTA SUBHAKAR @ SUBHAKAR S/O. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED 19 YEARS, STUDENT. 4. SRI. R. GURUMURTHY S/O. REKULAKUNTA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY @ RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED 25 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER. 5. SRI. SAMBAIAH P.S S/O. PEDDA SUBBAIAH AGED 42 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP-29/Z-1048 R/O. NO.4/19, HARIJANAWADA, THIPPEREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, PENDLIMARRY MANDAL, YSR, KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADV FOR R1 TO R4, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1049/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-III, BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.14,20,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 21.08.2017 passed in MVC No.1049 of 2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”). 2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (“APSRTC”) filed an appeal in MFA No.104402 of 2017, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed an appeal in MFA No.102618 of 2018 for enhancement. 4. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal, for convenience. 5. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 6. The petitioners, on account of the death of one Sri.Rekulakunta Shiva Prasad @ Shiva Prasad, son of petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of petitioners 3 and 4, in a road traffic accident, filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking for compensation. 7. The said road traffic accident was occurred on 07.09.2015 while the deceased was travelling in a Bolero Camper pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA.34-B.2536 as a cleaner, from Kondapura towards Tadapathri on National Highway-67, with a load of banana fruits. The APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP.29-Z.1048 came from the Tadapathri side in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The deceased was the only bread earner in the family and due to his death, the petitioners have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 lost their sole bread earner and they were dependent on the income of the deceased. Hence, they pray to allow the claim petition. 8. Respondent No.1 is the driver of APSRTC bus and respondent No.2 is the APSRTC. Despite grant of sufficient opportunities, respondent No.1 has not filed a statement of objections. 9. Respondent No.2—APSRTC filed a statement of objections, denying the claim petition averments. It is contended that the accident took place because of the negligence of the person pushing the Bolero without heeding to the signal, and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2. 10. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 11. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined petitioner No.1 as PW-1 and marked 8 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-8. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 examined himself as RW-1. The officials of respondent No.1 have not entered the witness box and marked any documents. 12. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition with costs, vide its judgment dated 21.08.2017. It is ordered that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of ₹14,20,000/- in the ratio of 30:40:20:10 together with interest at 8 percent per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the compensation amount in its entirety from respondent No.2 and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the amount in 90 days. 13. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed appeal in MFA No.102618 of 2018 for enhancement and the APSRTC has also filed an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation in MFA No.104402 of 2017. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at ₹7,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. He submits that in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the chart, for the accidents of the year 2015, the notional income is determined at ₹8,000/- per month. He also submits that the Tribunal has not added the future prospects to the notional income, in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 lower side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioners and dismiss the appeal filed by respondent No.2—APSRTC. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No.2—APSRTC submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. She submits that the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of ₹13,30,600/- as against ₹14,20,000/-. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal filed by the APSRTC and prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioners. 17. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties. 18. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the petitioners prove that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side? (ii) Whether respondent No.2— APSRTC proves that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side? (iii) What order or award? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 19. These points are interlinked and are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts. 20. There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. A complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle and a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioners have produced a charge sheet marked as Exhibit P-7, which discloses that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 21. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners have contended that the deceased was an agricultural coolie and was earning ₹10,000/- per month. To substantiate their case, the petitioners have not produced any proof of income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the notional income of the deceased as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2015, as per the chart, the notional income has to be assessed at ₹8,000/- per month. 22. In addition to it, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred to supra), the future prospects need to be added to the said income. As the deceased was aged about 24 years, 40% future prospects is to be added to the notional income of the deceased at ₹8,000/- per month. Thus, the net - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 income of the deceased would be ₹11,200/- (₹8,000/- + ₹3,200/-). 23. The deceased was a bachelor. Hence, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses i.e., ₹11,200/- / 2 = ₹5,600/-. 24. As the deceased was aged about 24 years as on the date of the accident, a multiplier of “18” is to be applied, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 25. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of ₹12,09,600/- [i.e., ₹5,600/- x 12 x ‘18’] towards loss of dependency. 26. Petitioners 1 and 2, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of ₹48,000/- each towards loss of consortium i.e., ₹48,000/- X 2 = ₹96,000/-. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 27. In addition, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of ₹18,000/- + ₹18,000/-= ₹36,000/- towards Funeral expenses and loss of estate. 28. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of ₹13,41,600/- as against ₹14,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Clearly, the Tribunal has awarded a higher compensation. Thus, the petitioners have not produced any records for the enhancement of compensation. 29. Respondent No.2 has made out a ground for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is to be modified accordingly. 30. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative. 31. Point No.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 ORDER (i) MFA No.102618 of 2018 is dismissed. (ii) MFA No.104402 of 2017 is allowed in part. (iii) The judgment and award dated 21.08.2017 passed in MVC No.1049 of 2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III, Ballari, is modified. (iv) The petitioners are held entitled to compensation of ₹13,41,600/- as against ₹14,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The amount is to be reduced to an extent of ₹78,400/-. (v) The petitioners are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation awarded by this Court at the rate of 8 percent per annum from the date of the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9363 MFA No. 102618 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 104402 of 2017 petition till the realisation of the compensation amount. (vi) Respondent No.2—APSRTC shall deposit the entire compensation amount with the accrued interest within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) Rest of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal regarding apportionment, is maintained. (viii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK Ct: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15