- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101290 OF 2021 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101291 OF 2021 IN MFA NO.101290/2021 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC KOPPAL DIVISION,KOPPAL, (VEHICLE NO.KA-37/F-176) REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SHANKRAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA VADDARA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORK, R/O: NILOGAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL 583280. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. *SANGATI, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KUSHTAGI IN MVC NO.282/2015 DATED 17.04.2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. *corrected vide chamber order dated 25.09.2025 Sd/- (ASKJJ) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 IN MFA NO.101291/2021 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL, (VEHICLE NO.KA-37/F176) REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAVVA W/O TIPPANNA VADDARA AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, 2. MANJUNATH S/O TIPPANNA VADDARA AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 3. BASAVARAJ S/O TIPPANNA VADDARA AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 4. BHEEMAPPA S/O TIPPANNA VADDARA AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. NIL, 5. SHANKRAPPA S/O TIPPANNA VADDARA AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. GOUNDI WORK, 6. DURGAPPA S/O TIPPANNA VADDARA AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. NIL, ALL ARE R/O NILOGAL, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583280. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B. *SANGATI, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KUSHTAGI IN MVC NO.281/2015 DATED 17.04.2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: *corrected vide chamber order dated 25.09.2025 Sd/- (ASKJJ) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) by the NEKRTC, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and the liability in common a judgment dated 17.04.2021 passed in MVC Nos.281 and 282 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows: On 29.10.2014, the petitioner in MVC 282/2015, his father Thippanna Vaddara were going on a motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MD621BD18A1D62458 towards their - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 native place. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle on the left side of the road. At that time, a NEKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-37/F-176 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, and his father, Tippanna died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioner in MVC 282/2015, and the legal representatives of the deceased Tippanna in MVC 281/2015, filed a claim petitions under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking the compensation on account of road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The NEKRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, and the rider contributed to the cause of the accident. The petition is bad - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 for non-joinder of the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed common relevant issues. 6. To substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 in MVC No.281/2015 was examined as P.W.1, petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 was examined as P.W.2, and marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24. In rebuttal, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, and no documents were produced on their behalf. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petitions in part vide judgment dated 17.04.2021, and awarded a compensation of Rs.11,69,2440/- in MVC No.281/2015 and Rs.6,71,197/- in MVC No.282/2015 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation. The NEKRTC, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the NEKRTC, and the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the NEKRTC submits that the rider of the motorcycle contributed to the cause of the accident, and there was contributory negligence. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Tribunal. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He submits that the petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 has not examined the doctor to prove his disability, and the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 15%, which is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that a charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus and not against the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. Reg. Liability: 12. There is no dispute that the petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 sustained grievous injuries, and Tippanna died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The petitioners have produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P6, which discloses that a charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus, and not against the rider of the motorcycle. From the perusal of Ex.P6, it discloses that tthe accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, by its driver. The Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the NEKRTC. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 13. In MVC No.281/2015, the petitioners have contended that the deceased Tippanna was working as a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 Mason and used to earn Rs.30,000/- p.m. The petitioners have not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2014. Hence, the notional income is taken at Rs.7,500/- p.m.In addition to it, 10% towards the future prospects has to be added, as per the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, which comes to Rs.8,250/-. The deceased was aged 58 years old, as of the date of the accident, and 1/4th of income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs.6,188/- (Rs.8,250/- - Rs.2,062/-). The multiplier applicable to the age group is ‘9’. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,68,304/- (Rs.6,188/-x 12 x 9) under the head loss of dependency. There are six claimants/ petitioners, and they are entitled to a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 6) under the head loss of consortium, Rs.36,000/- under the head of funeral expenses, and the loss of estate. 14. Thus, the petitioners in MVC No.281/2015 are entitled to a total compensation, which is as follows: Particulars Compensation amount in (Rs.) Loss of dependency (Rs.6188/-x 12x 9) 6,68,304/- Loss of consortium (Rs.48,000/- x 6) 2,88,000/- Funeral expenses and loss of Estate 36,000/- Less: Interim compensation 15,000/- Total 9,77,304 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 11,69,240/- 15. The petitioners in MVC No.281/2015 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,77,304/- as against Rs.11,69,240/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 contended that he had suffered a grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, and sustained a permanent physical disability. To prove the disability, the petitioner has not examined a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 doctor. The Tribunal, in the absence of the disability certificate and the evidence of the Doctor has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 15%. The disability assessed by the Tribunal is without any basis. Further, the petitioner has produced the records to establish that he has spent Rs.3,25,997/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. Moreover, he was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient for five days. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has undergone any surgery. Although the petitioner has produced Ex.P18 i.e., the medical bills, the petitioner has not produced any prescriptions. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.3,25,997/- towards the medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.6,71,197/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeals are allowed in part. ii) The common judgment and the awards dated 17.04.2021 passed in MVC Nos.281 and 282 of 2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi, is hereby modified. iii) The petitioners in MVC No.281/2015 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,77,304/- as against Rs.11,69,240/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization. iv) The petitioner in MVC No.282/2015 is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.6,71,197/- awarded by the Tribunal. v) The NEKRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11730 MFA No. 101290 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 101291 of 2021 vi) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15