- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21710 OF 2012 C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100024 OF 2022 IN MFA No. 21710 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE AND SELF INSURANCE FUND, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI, REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MANGALA W/O LATE SURESH KEMBAVI @ VADDATTI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BASAVANAL, TALUK: SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI. 2. SMT. PARAVVA W/O KALLAPPA KEMBAVI @ VADDATTI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BASAVANAL, TALUK: SHIMANO, DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.H.BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2- AS ABATED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.13/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:04:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,44,995/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. IN MFA.CROB No. 100024 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SMT. MANGALA W/O. LATE SURESH KEMBAVI @ VADDATTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BASAVANAL, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-587120 …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI K.H. BAGI, ADV) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE SELF-INSURANCE FUND, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.C.BHUTI, ADV FOR R1 & R2) THIS CROSS OBJECTIONS IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2012 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, HAVERI IN MVC NO.13/2011 AND TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.11,44,995/- TO Rs.12,10,000/- BY ALLOWING THIS CROSS OBJECTION. THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) NWKRTC, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed in MVC No.13/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for short), filed MFA No.21710/2012 challenging the quantum and liability. The claimants have filed MFA Cross objection No.100024/2022, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeals and this cross objection, are as follows: On 08.12.2009, Suresh met with an accident as he was riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/J-2344, along with his friend headed towards Savadatti, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F-274 came from the opposite direction with great speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motorcycle. As a result, Suresh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that the deceased was hale and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 healthy and he owns 8 acres of land and earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the sudden death of suresh, the claimants are suffering from deep mental shock and have lost a bread earner of the family. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Hence, the claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Suresh, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 3. The respondents-NWKRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased Suresh i.e., the rider of the motorcycle. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 5. During the pendency of the claim petition, Smt. Paravva i.e., claimant No.2 died, leaving behind claimant No.1. 6. The claimant, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. In rebuttal, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and no documents were produced and marked. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and held that petitioner No.1 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,44,995/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and directed the NWKRTC to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest. 8. The NWKRTC, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed MFA No.21710/2012 and the claimant filed MFA Cross Objection No.100024/2022 seeking for an enhancement of the compensation amount. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 9. Heard the learned counsel for the NWKRTC and the learned counsel for the claimant. 10. Learned counsel for NWKRTC submits that the accident occurred in 2009. The claimant has not produced any income proof of the deceased. In the absence of the income proof, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,10,000/- per annum which is on the higher side. He submits that, in the absence of any income proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. He submits that as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, for the accident of the year 2009, the notional income should be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. He also submits that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the motorcycle. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have saddled the liability on the rider of the motorcycle. Hence, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 erroneous. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-objection. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the deceased was an agriculturist, who owned 8 acres of land and was supervising the agricultural work. He submits that the Tribunal was not justified in assessing the annual income at Rs.1,10,000/- as the assessment is on lower side and same is liable to be enhanced. He also submits that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased Suresh, the rider of the motorcycle. He submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and a charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the offending bus. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross objection. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that arises for consideration is with regard to the liability and the quantum of the compensation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 Regarding Liability: 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of Suresh in the road traffic accident. The claimant has produced charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-7, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. Admittedly, no charge-sheet is filed against the deceased rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as the NWKRTC had not examined any eyewitness to establish that the rider of the motorcycle has contributed for the cause of the accident. Hence, the said contention of the NWKRTC cannot be accepted for the simple reason that a charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability on the NWKRTC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: 15. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has contended that the deceased was an agriculturist and earning Rs.1,10,000/- annually. To substantiate the contention, the claimant has not produced any documents to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Admittedly, the accident occurred in 2009. Notional income should be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. In addition 40% future prospects have to be added to the said amount in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1 i.e. Rs.5,000/-+2,000 (40%)=7,000/-. There are 2 claimants, hence, 1/3rd of income (i.e., Rs.2,333/-) has to be deducted, which comes to Rs.4,667/- per month. The deceased was aged about 38 years and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 15 as 1 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,40,060/- towards the loss of dependency. (Rs.4667x12x15) 16. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,40,060/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs.10,99,995/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to compensation for consortium, a sum of Rs.48,000/- and Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,24,060/- as against Rs.11,44,995/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.9,24,060/- from 11,44,995/-. 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal in MFA No.21710/2012, is allowed in part and MFA cross objection in MFA Crob No.100024/2022 is dismissed. 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121362 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9707 MFA No. 21710 of 2012 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100024 of 2022 ii. The judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed in MVC No.13/2011, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri, is modified. The claimant is entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.9,24,060/- as against Rs.11,44,995/-, awarded by the Tribunal. iii. NWKRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The amount in the deposit as to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE KMV CT: GSM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2