- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5560 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6588 OF 2019 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 5560/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.RAMAKKA, W/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRs. 3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SMT. SUSHEELA, W/O. GIRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.12, MAGADI ROAD, GOPALAPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 023. 5. SRI.R.PRAKASH, S/O. LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. SRI. SURYA NARAYANA R, S/O.LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 7. SMT. ANITHA.R W/O. MANJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.3 TUBINAKERE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120. 8. SMT.GOWRAMMA, D/O. LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A SOLADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562130. 9. SMT. SHOBHA .R, W/O. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A BHAKTHARAHALLI, HOSUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA-56210 10. SRI. YOGESH .R. S/O. LATE. RAMANJANAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS APPELLANTS 1,2,3,5,6 AND 10 ARE R/AT NIJAGAL KASABA HOBLI, DEVARAHOSAHALLI POST, SOMPURA, DOBASPET BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562111. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.5891/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XXXII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 6588/2019 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF LAW OFFICER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. F.S DABALI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAMAKKA, W/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRs. 3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SMT. SUSHEELA, W/O GIRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.12, MAGADI ROAD, GOPALAPURAM, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 023. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 5. SRI.R.PRAKASH, S/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. SRI SURYA NARAYANA R, S/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 7. SMT ANITHA R W/O MANJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.3 TUBINAKERE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120. 8. SMT.GOWRAMMA, D/O LATE RAMANJANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A SOLADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562130. 9. SMT. SHOBHA .R, W/O NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A BHAKTHARAHALLI, HOSUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA-56210 10. SRI. YOGESH .R. S/O LATE. RAMANJANAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1,2,3,5,6 AND 10 ARE R/A KASABA HOBLI, NIJAGAL, DEVARAHOSAHALLI POST, SOMAPURA, DOBASPET BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 111. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5891/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,26,766/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 PER CENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are by the Corporation as well as claimants, challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2019 in MVC.No.5891/2018 passed by VII Additional SCJ & XXXII ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), by the Corporation on the ground of quantum as well as contributory negligence and by the claimants on quantum. 2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Sri.Ramanjinaiah, aged about 71 years in the road traffic accident occurred on 25.08.2018, as well as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 liability to pay compensation are not in dispute. The dispute as per the Corporation is regarding the contributory negligence by the deceased to the accident as well as quantum of compensation. So far as claimant is concerned the dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation as the Tribunal has considered meagre income at Rs.12,000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.6,26,766/- without awarding any compensation towards ‘loss of filial consortium’ by claimant Nos.2 to 10. 3. Heard Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation in MFA.No.6588/2019 and respondent in MFA.No.5560/2019 and Sri.Raghu.R, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants in MFA.No.5560/2019 and respondents in MFA No.6588/2019. 4. Sri.F.S.Dabali, with all vehemence submits that the spot sketch produced by the claimant clearly indicates that the accident has occurred exactly between the space - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 provided at road median for passing of the vehicles. Though the entire police record is against the driver of the offending vehicle, the deceased who was rider of TVS-XL heavy duty moped should have been more circumspect while passing through the space between the median and should have observed the oncoming traffic in highway. A road user owes duty of safe passing to other road user. The deceased abruptly swerved his moped in the space between road median to go to the other side without noticing the oncoming bus and the unfortunate accident occurred, wherein the driver of the vehicle has no role in causing the accident. The entire fault is on the deceased rider of the TVS-XL moped. 5. To buttress his argument, he has relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of KOOSAPPA POOJARY Vs. K.SADABBA AND OTHERS1. With this Sri.F.S.Dabali, sought to allow the appeal and holding 100% contributory negligence on the rider of the 1 ILR 2003 KAR 1104 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 moped or in the alternative to consider reasonable contributory negligence at the rate of 90% at least and modify the award and reduce the compensation by considering deduction towards personal expenses at 50% instead of 1/3rd as considered by the Tribunal, by dismissing the appeal preferred by the claimants. 6. Conversely, Sri.Raghu.R with all vehemence submits that the spot sketch/panchanamma clearly shows that the accident has occurred between the space provided in the median of the road. The driver of the bus is having sufficient space on the left side. If the driver was vigilant and little more circumspect could have avoided the collusion of bus with the moped, if he was plying the bus observing the Indian Traffic Rules, which prescribes that the vehicle should run on the left side of the road. 7. In the present case on hand, though the road is a highway with a median having two lanes on either side, if the bus was to driven on the left in terms of the Indian Traffic Rules, the accident could not have occurred, in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 these circumstances, he submits that the judgment relied on by the counsel for the Corporation would not come to the aid of Corporation. The police after conducting proper investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. Neither the Corporation nor the driver of the bus challenged the charge sheet filed by the police. The Corporation, except examining its driver, has not taken any pain to examine any independent witness or the Investigation Officer to substantiate their contention on contributory negligence. 8. A perusal of entire charge sheet materials clearly indicates and points out that the entire rash and negligent driving is by the driver of the bus and he is solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal having considered these aspects of the matter answered the Issue No.1 framed on the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus belonging to the Corporation in ‘Affirmative’ and awarded the compensation. The same is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 9. So far as quantum is concerned the Tribunal has considered the income at Rs.12,000/- per month, however as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for disposal of cases before the Lok Adalat, the income is fixed at Rs.12,500/- to the corresponding year that is 2018. The same amount must have been considered by the Tribunal while computing the loss of dependency. 10. The Tribunal has committed serious error in not awarding any compensation under the head filial consortium towards the other claimants who are the children of Late.Ramanjinaiah. In all, there are 9 children as visible in the judgment cause-title. However, one of the son that is appellant No.2 expired during the pendency of this appeal leaving behind the other claimant as his representative. The Tribunal has not considered the case for awarding ‘loss of filial consortium’ that is parental loss to the children. The Tribunal has granted ‘loss of consortium’ at the rate of Rs.40,000/- towards claimant - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 No.1 and failed to award any compensation towards other claimants. 11. To buttress his argument, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS2 in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 dated 18.09.2018. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.8.7A has extensively dealt with the legal parlance “consortium” encompassing ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’ and ‘filial consortium’. The paragraph No.8.7A reads as under: “8.7A. Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 relationships with the deceased spouse. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband, wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.” Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.” Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and Rajesh and Ors Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 BLACK’s LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed.1979) family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 12. Sri. Raghu.R, further submits that the claimants are also entitled for 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads for each completed 3 years from 2017. In the case on hand, they are entitled for 20% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional head. With this, he sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 13. At this stage, Sri. F.S Dabali, submits that the word used in the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 Magma supra is loss of ‘parental consortium’ to the child upon the premature death of a parent. In the case on hand all the children of deceased Late.Ramanjinaiah are major, married and leading independent life with their family and the children cannot be termed as child to entailing them for ‘parental consortium’. The Tribunal having considered the age of the claimants restrained itself from awarding any compensation towards ‘parental consortium’ which is sound and proper and does not warrant any interference. 14. Sri. F.S.Dabali, further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded 8% interest without there being any material and discussion. The normal general interest awarded in claim petitions by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in motor vehicle cases is at 6%, except where there are exceptional cases are made out. In the case on hand there is no such exceptional case is made out which warrants interest at the rate of 8% as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the same must be reduced. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 15. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused both the appeal papers as well as the trial Court record. 16. The questions that would arise for consideration before this Court are: (1) Whether the appellant/Corporation has made out any case on contributory negligence and if so, at what percentage? (2) Whether the appellants/claimants have made a case for enhancement of compensation as per their contentions stated supra? 17. My answer to the above point for consideration is: (1) Point No.1: Partly in Affirmative at the rate of 20% on deceased (2) Point No.2: Partly in Affirmative, for the following: REASONS - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 18. Point No.1: Both the learned counsel for the parties relied on the spot sketch and based their arguments on the negligence. A perusal of Ex.P4 spot sketch clearly indicates that the accident occurred very close to the space between the median for passing of the vehicles from one side of the road to other side in the highway. At the time of accident, though the road was divided by a median and the bus was plying on its side of road from Bengaluru towards Tumakuru, but was on the extreme right side that is very close to road median. The driver of the bus has got sufficient road on the left side and could have avoided the accident if he was little caution and circumspect. But it cannot be lost sight that a person who was using highway while passing through a road median to go to other side of the road should have been more circumspect and cautioned and have observed oncoming vehicles. 19. Though the entire police records are against the driver of the bus, but a perusal of spot sketch, is the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 factual background of the case clearly indicates that there is some element of negligence on the part of deceased- rider of the moped. 20. This Court in the case of KOOSAPPA POOJARI, supra while dealing with the aspect of contributory negligence, in the opening statement, started with the quote of Lord du Parog as under: “Underlying principle of the law of the highway is that all those lawfully using the highway must show mutual respect and forbearance”. The Co-ordinate Bench further observed on the said quoting that a duty of a person who drives or rides a vehicle on the highway is to use reasonable care to avoid causing damages to persons, vehicles or property of any kind or on adjoining the highway. The Co-ordinate Bench further in at paragraph No.7 as stated as under: “It is the duty of the driver of a vehicle to keep a good look out. He must look out for other traffic which may be expected to be on the road in front of him, behind him or along side of him especially at cross roads, junctions and bends.” - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 21. The Co-ordinate Bench considering the facts of the case there observed that, the deceased after he had crossed a better part of the road and was standing on the median line to cross the remaining half and in fact he has crossed a small extent that is to an extent of 2 1/2 feet in the road, at that time, the accident occluded having said so modified the judgment of the Tribunal holding 40% contributory negligence on the claimant to that of 25%. 22. In the light of the judgment in Koosappa Poojary supra, when the facts of the case on hand are analised, the spot of accident is very much closer to the open space at the median line running from Bengaluru to Tumakuru. The fact which remains is there is ample and sufficient space available towards the left side of the road to the driver of the bus to avoid the accident. 23. An accident is an inevitable moment, without there being any intention to cause an injury or death as the case may be or damage to the property. But the most - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 important factor to be considered, is the best chance wherein the one could have avoided the accident, that is when analysing who was driving/riding the offending vehicles negligently and rashly and in case both were so, who among the two who had last opportunity to avoid the accident. 24. My view gains support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & Anr. Vs. K HEMALATHA & Ors,3 (see paragraph No.7). 25. In the case on hand, the driver of the offending bus belonging to the Corporation has got ample opportunity to avoid the accident, if he was little more careful and circumspect, and could have avoided the accident since he had ample space on the left side. 3 2008 SCC online SC 968 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 26. On perusal of Ex.P4 though there is some negligence on the part of deceased rider of the moped, but major contribution is by the driver of the bus. In these circumstances, if the contributory negligence is fixed at 20% on the deceased and 80% on the driver of the bus, the same would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered 27. So far as quantum is concerned, this Court finds force in the argument of Sri.Raghu.R, regarding the income considered by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken income at the rate of Rs,12,000/- p.m, the same is against the chart stated supra. As per the chart supra income of an unskilled labours for the year 2018 is filed at Rs.12,500/-. Accordingly, the same income is taken while calculating the ‘loss of dependency’. 28. So far as awarding ‘parental consortium’ to the other claimants, is concerned, is no more res integra with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA supra. The - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 Hon'ble Apex Court extensively given an exposition to the legal paralance to the word ‘consortium’ in paragraph number 8.7A of its judgment. 29. A loss of ‘parental consortium’ is loss of aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. This Court finds it very hard to accept the contention of Sri. F.S.Dabali to give a literal meaning to the word ‘child’ stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The argument advanced by Sri. F.S.Dabali, is against the proposition of law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 30. The affection, society, parental aid and guidance of a father to his child assumes more importance in life. A parental guidance is always required for every child irrespective of the age and position. A loss of a parent can never be compensated, but by avoiding some compensation, but the amount awarded to the child is a compensation for loss of love, affection, care, guidance of the parent some solace. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 31. In these circumstances, as rightly contented by Sri.Raghu.R, each claimant except appellant No.2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- in view of Magma supra, towards ‘loss of consortium’ respectively (spousal as well as parental). The claimants are also entitled for 10% escalation towards the compensation awarded under the conventional heads for every completed 3 years from 2017, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI4. 32. Since the deceased was married the deduction towards personal expenses at 1/3rd considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SMT.SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER5. Accordingly the point on quantum anwered in favour of claimants. 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 33. On re-determination and re-consideration the appellant is entitled for the following compensation: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 4,80,000-00 5,00,000-00 (Rs.12,500x12x5x2/3) 2. Loss of estate 15,000-00 15,000-00 3. Loss of consortium 40,000-00 3,60,000-00 (Rs.40,000x9) 4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000-00 15,000-00 5. Medical expenses 76,766-00 76,766-00 6. 10% escalation for each completed 3 years from 2017 for 2 terms 78,000-00 TOTAL 6,26,766-00 10,44,766-00 34. Accordingly, claimants entitled for re- determined compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,44,766/- (rounded off to Rs.10,45,000/-), which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum as against Rs.6,26,766/- awarded by the Tribunal from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 35. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 ORDER i) Both the appeals are allowed-in- part. ii) The appeal by the Corporation is allowed only with respect of contributory negligence at the rate of 20% on the deceased and 80% on the driver of the Corporation. Further, reducing interest from 8% to 6%. iii) The appeal by the claimant is allowed-in- part, re-determining compensation from Rs.6,26,766/- to Rs.10,45,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, the judgment and award by the Tribunal is modified. iv) The amount in deposit in the appeal by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. v) The balance re-determined compensation along with interest stated supra shall be deposited by the Corporation, before the concerned Tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi) Upon deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of claimants as per the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46849 MFA No. 5560 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 6588 of 2019 apportionment and disbursement order passed by the Tribunal. vii) The trial Court record shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal without causing any delay. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19