- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202077 OF 2025 (MV-I) c/w MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201875 OF 2025 (MV-I) IN MFA No.202077/2025 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL DIRECTOR, KALYAN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SARIGE SADAN STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SIDDARAM S/O. PRABHU KHANDEKAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE AS WAITER IN CRYSTAL PARK HOTEL, KALABURAGI. NOW NIL, R/O. VILLAGE MADYAL TQ. ALAND, NOW RESIDING AT KALABURAGI - 585 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SRIDEVI J. TUPPD, ADV. FOR C/R) Page Nos.1 to 8 are retyped and replaced and page No.9 is inserted vide Chamber order dated 04.12.2025. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2024 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.588/2024 BY EXONERATING THE LIABILITY PROPORTIONATELY FROM THE APPELLANT AND ALSO REDUCING THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA No.201875/2025 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KALYAN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SARIGE SADAN, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE) AND: ANNAYYA @ ANNARAYA MANTAGI S/O. SHIVARAYA MANTAGI, AGE 33 YEARS, OCC. ELECTRICIAN, R/O. MADIYAL VILLAGE, TQ: ALAND, KALABURAGI-585 236. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SRIDEVI J. TUPPAD, ADV. FOR C/R) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE MISC. FIRST APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26-12-2024 PASSED BY MACT-AND I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.466/2024 BY EXONERATING THE LIABILITY PROPORTIONATELY FROM THE APPELLANT AND ALSO REDUCING THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These two appeals by the Corporation calling in question the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, in different claim petitions being MVC Nos.588/2024 and 466/2024 dated 26.12.2024, arising out of same accident, wherein both rider and pillion rider were before the Tribunal seeking for compensation for the injuries sustained and disability resulted and these two appeals are filed on the ground of contributory negligence and quantum. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicles, injuries suffered by the respondent/claimant in both the appeals are not in dispute. The disputes involved in these appeals are with regard to the contributory negligence, which according to the Corporation, committed by the rider of the motorcycle, so also the quantum. 3. Heard Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Corporation and Smt. Sridevi J. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 Thuppad, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent in both the appeals. 4. Sri Deepak V. Barad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in both the appeals taking us through the judgment and award, vehemently submitted that, a specific contention raised before the Tribunal, that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, as the collision between the bus and the motorcycle was head-on. However, this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal, which has resulted in fastening the entire liability on the appellant - Corporation. He further submits that, Ex.P5 – M.V.I report, clearly reveals that, both the vehicles i.e., Bus as well as the Motorcycle have got damaged. The damage caused to the bus is on the right side front bumper, right side head light and front side corner. So far as the motorcycle is concerned, front wheel mudguard and bumper damaged, head light assembly, both indicators, speedometers unit and handlebar damaged. This non- consideration by the Tribunal has resulted in fasten the entire liability on the driver of bus. He further submits that, there is no document produced either to prove the avocation and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 salary. In these circumstances, compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant compared to the injuries suffered by the rider as well as pillion and the disability resulted. Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal on these two grounds, by modifying the judgment. 5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, Smt. Sreedevi J. Tuppad with all vehemence submits that, as per the record, the case was registered against the driver of the bus. The police having completed the investigation, filed charge sheet only against the driver of the bus. There is no contra evidence produced from the Corporation to disprove the charge sheet and the petition averments so also have there is no effective cross examination of PW1. The claimants have established their case on the test of the preponderance of probability. In these circumstances, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in affirmative against the driver of the bus, holding that, it is the driver of the bus who is rash and negligent in driving and reason for the accident. Accordingly, answered Issue No.1 framed on negligence in affirmative and against the Corporation, which does not call for any interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 6. So far as awarding of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal after considering the entire material produced before it and looking to the injuries suffered by rider as well as pillion, which has resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 80% and considering the age of the rider as well as pillion rider, awarded appropriate compensation. As such, the same does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers of both the appeals, the only question which would arise for our consideration is as follows: Whether the appellant - Corporation made out any case to fasten the contributory negligence so also to reduce the compensation? 8. Our answer to the above point for consideration is in ‘negative’ for the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 REASONS 9. As could be seen from the records, the police have registered complaint against the driver of the bus and after investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. The Tribunal, while giving its finding on issue No.1, perused the entire material placed before it and comes to the conclusion that the claimant has proved his case on the test of preponderance of probability. The Corporation has not placed any contra-evidence to disprove the charge sheet material, so also the evidence placed by the claimants. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the opinion that, the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident and answered issue No.1 in affirmative against the Corporation. As could be seen from the record, neither the driver of the bus nor the Corporation challenged the charge sheet filed against the driver. Except the evidence of the driver and other officers, they have not placed any evidence, either the eyewitnesses or the I.O, to substantiate their stand that the rider contributed to the accident. In these circumstances, it becomes very hard for us to accept the contentions of the appellant - Corporation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 10. So far as quantum is concerned, the rider was aged 21 years and pillion was aged 31 years at the time accident, suffered injuries, which has resulted in disability, to the extent of 90% to the whole body. Despite the evidence of doctor, the Tribunal has taken the same at 80% and awarded the compensation. Though the compensation awarded seems to be on the lower side, however, as there is no appeal by the claimants, we feel it appropriate to retain the award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Corporation failed on both the grounds. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) These appeals sans merit and dismissed. ii) The amount in deposit in both the appeals shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal in the concerned MVC Nos.588/2024 and 466/2024 for disbursement, forthwith. iii) The balance amount shall be deposited in both the appeals before the concerned Tribunal in concerned MVC Nos.588/2024 and 466/2024 along with interest awarded by the appellant - - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5194-DB MFA No. 202077 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 201875 of 2025 Corporation within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal. All other directions of the Tribunal kept intact. iv) No order as to cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:JLR