- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2021 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4878 OF 2021 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 548/2021 BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU NOW REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICE BANGALORE …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S NIRMMALA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KEMPACHARI S/O BASAVA CHARI, AGED 52 YEARS, 2. NAGAMMA W/O KEMPACHARI, AGED 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 3. SHIVU S/O KEMPACHARI, AGED 22 YEARS, 4. KISHORE S/O KEMPACHARI, AGED 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O HOSKOTE DHAKALE KASABA HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, HALE KEMPAIAHNA HUNDI MYSURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 136/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 11,89,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 4878/2021 BETWEEN: 1. KEMPACHARI S/O BASAVACHARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. NAGAMMA W/O KEMPACHARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SHIVU K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 S/O KEMPACHARI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. KISHORE S/O KEMPACHARI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HALE KEMPAIAHNA HUNDI HOSAKOTE DAKHLE KASABA HOBLI T NARASIPURA TALUK-571 124 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC MYSURU RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP MYSURU-570015 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NIRAMMALA S., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.136/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRL. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) These appeals are by a Transport Corporation and the claimants in M.V.C.No.136/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru and Principal Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal has granted to the claimants1 [who are the parents and the siblings of the deceased Nishanth] a total sum of Rs.12,04,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum under the following heads: 1. Towards loss of financial dependency Rs.11,34,000.00 2. Towards loss of love and affection Rs.40,000.00 3. Towards estate Rs.15,000.00 4. Towards funeral expenses and transportation of body Rs.15,000.00 Total Rs.12,04,000.00 1 The parties are referred to respectively as ‘the Transport Corporation’ and the Claimants, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 2. The Transport Corporation does not dispute that the deceased Nishanth died on the spot when he hit a parked bus while travelling on his two-wheeler, and the Transport Corporation also does not dispute that the claimants are his parents and younger siblings. The Tribunal has opined that the bus driver was responsible for the accident because he had parked the bus covering over 50% of one sided road making it difficult for others to move freely on the other side of the road. The Transport Corporation is aggrieved by this finding. 3. The claimants are aggrieved by the computation of Loss of Dependency and grant of Rs.40,000/- only towards Loss of Consortium. The Tribunal has computed the Loss of Dependency taking the income of the deceased, who was aged 22 years at the time of accident, at Rs.7,500/- per month and capitalising the same with addition at 40% towards Future Prospects and deducting 50% - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 therefrom towards the Personal Expenses of the deceased. 4. Mrs. S. Nirmala, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, submits that the driver of the bus is examined as RW 1 and he has deposed that [a] on 23.08.2017 there was a heavy downpour and the bus-wiper was malfunctioning, [b] he had to park the bus to the left to attend to the malfunctioning wiper when the deceased, while coming on his two-wheeler from behind, hit the parked bus on the rear right side of the bus. The learned counsel submits that, [i] the photographs have been marked as Ex. R1 and that these photographs show that the vehicle was parked on the left-hand side of the road, but the Tribunal has completely overlooked this document as also the Spot Sketch, which corroborates the Transport - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 Corporation's case that the bus was parked on the left-hand side of the road. [ii] this Court must therefore interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the driver of the bus was negligent in parking the vehicle in the middle of the road occupying 50% of the road. 5. Mr. K. Shantharaja, the learned counsel for the claimants, submits that the compensation must be paid to a victim of the road accident [or the dependents] when there is an accident, and neither the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'], nor the relevant Rules contemplate liability to pay compensation only when there is negligence. As an alternative, the learned counsel refutes the submission on the negligence by the deceased emphasizing that the driver of the bus had failed to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 take all precautions while parking the bus to attend to the malfunctioning wiper. 6. On the quantum of compensation, Mr. K. Shantharaja submits that the undisputed evidence is that the deceased was working as a Carpenter and if he was working as a Carpenter, it cannot be reasonably inferred that he was only earning Rs.7,500/- per month and that this Court must accept the claimants’ ocular evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned counsel also contends that the parents and the younger siblings depended on the deceased, and therefore, the deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses should only be 1/4th and not 1/2 as is deducted by the Tribunal. 7. The question for consideration in these two appeals is: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 a. Whether the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the Transport Corporation's driver was rash and negligent and is responsible for the accident, and b. Whether the Tribunal should have computed the Loss of Dependency taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month and deducting 50% of such income towards the Personal Expenses of the deceased. 8. The driver's evidence is categorical, and this evidence is not seriously contested. On the fateful day, at the time of accident, there was a heavy downpour and the bus’s wiper was malfunctioning, and therefore, he parked his vehicle to the left of the road and got down from the bus to attend to the wiper when he heard a sound of somebody hitting into a parked bus. In the cross- examination, he was asked whether he had turned on the blinkers/parking lights, and he asserts that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 he had indeed turned on the lights. The driver has also spoken about the photographs taken at the place of the accident. 9. It is seen from these photographs that the vehicle is parked on the left-hand side of the road but on the metalled part when it could have been moved further to the left on the un-metalled part of the road. The bus is damaged on the rear right side. The photograph also shows the bike, and this Court must observe that the bike is not extensively damaged. The Post Mortem Report is also marked as Ex. P5. The Doctor's opinion is that the death is because of the injuries suffered by the deceased in the head and resultant haemorrhage. This evidence must also be examined in the light of the measures that the driver of the bus had to take when he had to park the vehicle because of a certain contingency. 10. This Court must observe that it cannot be disputed that moving a bus to some left would not - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 in itself be sufficient, nor would the switching on the blinkers. The driver of the bus is enjoined in law to put reflectors at a safe distance from the parked vehicle to show that it is parked because there is a breakdown. This assumes significance in the present case because admittedly there was a heavy downpour. 11. It is settled that the responsibility to answer a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act hinges on the claimants establishing negligence on the driver of the concerned vehicle2. This Court must therefore examine the question of negligence and also decide whether there was any contributory negligence. The Tribunal has not examined this aspect, and this Court is of the view that the Tribunal should have. 2 Minu B Mehta and Another Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1248 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 12. This Court, on a complete reading of the evidence as aforesaid, opines that the deceased has also contributed to the accident, but on the question of apportionment, the negligence in the driver of the bus must be higher. The driver of the bus as aforesaid had no difficulty in moving the bus further to the left of the road or in putting up reflectors at a safe distance. This Court therefore opines that the contributory negligence between the deceased and the driver of the bus must be in the ratio of 25:75. The first part of the question is answered accordingly. 13. The undisputed evidence is that the deceased was aged 22 years and was working as a Carpenter. The claimants have not brought on record any evidence that would justify an inference that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. This is a case where there is no proof of actual income, and where there is no proof of actual income, this Court, for reasons of consistency and uniformity, has taken - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 the notional income as per the table evolved in the Lok Adalath. In the cases arising out of accidents in the year 2017, the notional income is taken at Rs.11,000/- per month, and because the vocation of the deceased is not in dispute, this Court is of the opinion that a higher sum should be taken, and to ensure that there is just and reasonable compensation, the income of the deceased must be taken at Rs.12,500/- per month. 14. The next question that this Court will have to decide is, whether the deduction towards the deceased's Personal Expenses must be '50%' or '25%'. The argument for deduction towards a lesser deduction hinges on the assertion that the siblings were minors and they were dependent on the deceased as were the parents. It is seen even from the cause-title of the claim petition that the siblings were aged 20 and 18 years and the parents of the deceased respectively were 50 and 42 years. This Court, in the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 absence of positive evidence to establish that these siblings depended indeed on the deceased, cannot conclude that the deduction should be any less than 50% and there is no reason for interference on this ground. 15. The compensation towards Loss of Dependency must be re-computed taking the income of the deceased as aforesaid at Rs.12,500/- per month [with addition towards future prospects] and when so computed, the compensation towards Loss of Dependency would be in a sum of Rs. 18,90,000/- as against the sum of Rs.11,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Details for Computation of Loss of Dependency Amount in Rs. Monthly Income 12,500 Addition towards Future Prospects 40% 5,000 Monthly Income + Future Prospects 17,500 Annual Income 12 2,10,000 Deduction towards personal expenses 50% 1,05,000 Multiplicand [after deduction towards 1,05,000 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 personal Expenses] Multipler 18 Loss of Dependency 18,90,000 16. The next aspect is whether the Tribunal is justified in granting only a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection; in other words, towards Loss of Consortium. It is now settled that the claimants, be the parents or the siblings, would on their own account be entitled for Consortium and that each of them would be entitled to at a sum of Rs.40,000/-. This Court is of the view that there must be an enhancement towards this head and the claimants must be granted Rs.1,60,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The consequential enhancement of compensation from Rs.12,04,000/- to Rs.20,80,000/- is brought about by a comparative table of the amount as decided by the Tribunal and as decided by this Court. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 By the Tribunal [in Rs.] By this Court [in Rs.] Towards Loss of Dependency 11,34,000 18,90,000 Towards Loss of Love and Affection 40,000 1,60,000 Towards Estate 15,000 15,000 Towards funeral expenses and transportation of body 15,000 15,000 Total 12,04,000 20,80,000 75% of the Compensation of Rs.20,80,000/- Rs.15,60,000 Enhancement [Rs.15,60,000/- 3,56,000 In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER a. The appeals are disposed of modifying the impugned judgment and decree in M.V.C.No.136/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru and Principal Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru granting to the claimants compensation in a sum of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27591-DB MFA No. 548 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 4878 of 2021 Rs.15,60,000/- with enhancement of Rs.3,56,000/-. b. The Transport Corporation is called upon to deposit Rs.15,60,000/- amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit with the Tribunal for disbursement inter se the claimants subject to the Tribunal's decision on apportionment. c. The amount in deposit, if any, in these appeals shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement as aforesaid. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB