- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 23637 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN 1. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. MANJUNATH BIJAPUR, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAVALUR, DHARWAD. 2. TULASI D/O. MANJUNATH BIJAPUR, AGE 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NAVALUR, DHARWAD. 3. JEEVAN S/O. MANJUNATH BIJAPUR, AGE 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NAVALUR, DHARWAD. (APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER I.E., APPELLANT NO. 1). - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. R. BENTUR, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.05.2012 IN MVC NO.185/2011 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACT COURT-III DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION OF THE APPELLANT AND ETC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This is a claimant's appeal against Judgement and award dated 26th May 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III at Dharwad in M.V.C. No. 185/2011. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the tribunal. 2. It is the case of claimants that on 09.07.2010 around 7.30 p.m. deceased Manjunath while going on his motorcycle bearing registration Number KA-25-EB-5431 from Haveri towards Hubali met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a bus belonging to Respondent Corporation bearing registration Number KA- 27-F-394, as a result of which, said Manjunath sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. It is further contended that claimants are his wife, children and mother. They were depending upon earnings of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 30 years. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 He was a Mason and earning Rs. 350/- per day or Rs. 10,500/- per month. He was maintaining the family from the said income. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. 3. The Corporation filed written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioner. It is further contended that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the deceased and not due to the any of the acts of the driver of the bus. The deceased was heavily drunken and riding his vehicle in a high speed and rash and negligently and dashed against the bus. Therefore, respondent is not at all liable to pay the compensation, with these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The trial Court recorded the evidence of claimants as well as the respondent. Claimants examined two witnesses as PW1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. Respondent examined RW1. The tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating pleading and evidence - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 available on record, held that claimants proved that accident had taken place due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, that is, Manjanath. Therefore, respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, claim petition was dismissed. 5. Heard the arguments of learned Advocate appearing for both the parties. 6. The learned Advocate for appellants vehemently contends that charge sheet was filed against both the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the bus. The complaint was given by a Police Constable, who was said to be witness to the accident and other eyewitnesses have also stated that accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the motor vehicle. Although charge sheet & materials have been placed before the Tribunal by the claimants, they were not properly appreciated and erroneously held that accident occurred due to sole negligence of rider of the motorcycle. Even if we consider that both the persons were charge sheeted, then the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 tribunal should have held that accident had taken place due to composite negligence of rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the bus and apportioned negligence in the ratio of 50:50 and directed the respondent to pay 50% of the compensation amount to the claimant. Therefore, the findings of the tribunal are erroneous and need for interference by this court. 7. The learned counsel for appellant further submits that evidence on record show about age of the deceased, his earning capacity, his actual earnings, etc. by which the Tribunal could have assessed the compensation. Therefore, this Court may consider the same and award the compensation. It is submitted that accident had taken place during the year 2010 and petition was filed during the year 2011 before the tribunal. Even after the lapse of 13 years, the claimants were unable to get any compensation. Therefore, submitted that instead of remanding the matter, this court may assess the compensation and award the same to the claimant. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 8. The learned counsel for the corporation respondent vehemently contended that the Tribunal has properly assessed the evidence and rightly came to conclusion on the basis of mahajar as well as charge sheet that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. The materials placed before the court, that is, charge sheet and its enclosures, reveal that there was no fault on the driver of the bus in causing accident in question. These facts were considered by the tribunal and rightly dismissed the petition and it doesn't call for any interference by this court. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. The following questions arise for determination. 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased alone and interference in the said finding is required. 2. If the question number 1 is in the affirmative, then what is the ratio of composite negligence of rider of the motorcycle in causing the accident in question? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 3. If the claimants are entitled for the compensation, then what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled? 10. Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly, the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the bus were chargesheeted. Both the sides have not produced the map prepared by the investigating officer of the spot of accident. The Tribunal considered the width of the road and the spot of accident from East to West and the distance from the East to West about the spot of accident and held that rider of the motorcycle completely went to wrong side of the road and caused the accident. It is also pertinent to note that if the driver of the bus had control over his vehicle, he could have avoided the accident. It is not the case of the driver of the bus, that is, RW1, that the rider of the motorcycle earlier was going at the left side of the road and suddenly came to the wrong side of the road, therefore he had no opportunity to avoid the collusion. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 11. The investigating officer, who had an opportunity to see the spot of accident and enquire with witnesses, came to conclusion that accident had taken place due to composite negligence of rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the bus. Respondent or driver of bus did not challenge the said chargesheet. These facts were not properly appreciated by the tribunal. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that accident had occurred due to sole negligence of rider of the motorcycle is erroneous. 12. From the facts, circumstances and materials available on record, it can be safely conclude that the accident had taken place due to composite negligence of driver of the bus as well as rider of the motorcycle and their composite negligence is in the ratio of 50:50. 13. For the aforesaid discussions, question Number 1 is answered partly in the affirmative and question number 2 is also answered accordingly. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 14. Question number 3: It is true that the Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation. Since petition was dismissed, the tribunal thought it fit not to assess the compensation. Materials are available on record to assess the compensation. Therefore, instead of remanding the matter to the tribunal for calculation of the compensation, it is determined in this appeal. 15. Age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 30 years. They have not produced any records to prove the age. In the post mortem report, that is, Exhibit P4, age of the deceased is mentioned as 30 years. Same could be accepted. Income of the deceased is stated as Rs 10,500/- per month. There are no materials on the record to prove it. Therefore, notional income of the deceased has to be considered on the basis of chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. According to the said chart, income of a victim of an accident of a relevant year is Rs.5,500/- per month. The deceased was aged at about 30 years. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 Honourable Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of his income has to be added towards future prospects. 16. At the time of filing of the petition, there were four dependents to the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, one of them has expired. Therefore, 1/4th of his income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The proper multiplier applicable in the case is ‘17’. 17. On that figures compensation towards loss of dependency shall be assessed. The claimants are also entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 18. In respect of the conventional heads, the compensation has to be awarded as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (referred supra). Therefore, claimants are entitled for following amount of compensation. 1. Loss of dependency (Rs.5,500/- + 40% x 12 x 17 x ¾) 11,78,100.00 2. Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4) 1,60,000.00 3. Funeral expenses 15,000.00 4. Loss of estate 15,000.00 Total 13,68,000.00 19. While answering the question number 1 and 2, it is held that accident had taken place due to composite negligence of rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the bus in the ratio of 50:50 and hence, claimants are entitled for 50% of the total compensation amount, that is, Rs.6,84,050/-. Claimants are also entitled for interest on the said amount from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, the question number 3 is answered. 20. Claimants are the wife and children and all of them are entitled for equal share and accordingly the amount of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 compensation shall be apportioned. For the apportioned discussions, following orders are passed: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. Judgement and award passed in M.V.C. No. 185/2011 dated 26.05.2012 by the F.T.C-III, Dharwad, is set aside. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till the realization of the entire amount. Respondent is liable to pay the said amount and it shall deposit the said amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of award. Amount of the compensation shall be apportioned equally between claimants number 1 to 3. Claimants number 2 and 3 are minors. Therefore, entire amount awarded to their share shall be kept in a fixed deposit till they attain majority and claimant No.1 has to maintain the two children and already the matter is pending for the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6746 MFA No. 23637 of 2012 court for last 15 years. Therefore, she is exempted from depositing of the amount. Entire amount of compensation apportioned to her share, shall be released in her favour on due identification. Send the copy of the judgment along with the trial Court records to the tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51