- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2769 OF 2017 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8219 OF 2016 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 2769/2017 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SHAILA. C W/O LATE RAVICHANDRAN N AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 2. MRS. YASHODAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 3. MR. NARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNIPAPANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.329, NANDI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562101. AND ALSO AT NO.221 SRINIVASANAGAR, KITHIGANUR MAIN ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. THIMMAIAH K. H., ADV.) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 AND: THE MANAGER, KSRTC, BHAGATHSINGHNAGAR, MUSTHURU ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE-562101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3727/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. JUDGE, XXXII ACMM AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE (SCCH-3), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 8219/2016 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER K.S.R.T.C., BHAGATHSINGH NAGAR, MUSTHURU ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 AND: 1. SMT. SHAILA C W/O. LATE RAVICHANDRAN. N, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 2. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIPAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, ALL ARE PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.329, NANDI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. AND ALSO AT: NO.221, SRINIVASA NAGAR, KITHIGANUR MAIN ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. H. THIMMAIAH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1)OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.3727/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, XXXII ACMM AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPANSATION OF RS.14,88.000/-WITH INTEREST 8% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Both these appeals are against Judgment and award dated 23rd September 2016 passed in MVC No.3727 of 2016 by the VIII Additional Judge, XXXII ACMM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. MFA No.8219 of 2016 is preferred by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation questioning the liability as also the quantum of compensation. Claimants have preferred MFA No.2769 of 2017 seeking enhancement in the compensation. 3. Brief facts leading to these events are that on 23rd July 2014 at about 7:40 am, when the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04/HA-5328 towards Nandi, at that time, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA- 40/F-380 driven by its driver on the same road in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased, the impact of which, deceased fell from motorcycle and died on the spot. Contending that the deceased was the only son to the entire family and petitioners - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 were completely dependent on the income of the deceased and the accident in question had taken place due to negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus, the claimants preferred claim petition seeking compensation. 4. In response to notice, respondent appeared through its Counsel and filed written statement denying the age and avocation of the deceased, as well as the dependency as urged by the petitioners. Respondent denied the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim petition. It was specifically stated that the driver of KSRTC bus was driving it slowly on the left side of the road, and when the bus reached near Nandi Gopinatha betta, the motorcycle came from the opposite side in a high speed and upon observing the same, the driver of the bus brought it to halt and stationed it on the left side of the road. But the rider of the motorcycle losing control, dashed against the front right side corner of the stationed bus, fell down and died on the spot. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of rider of motorcycle. 5. Based on the pleadings, Tribunal framed issues. To prove the case, petitioners examined two witnesses as PWs1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 and 2 and marked sixteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. On behalf of respondent, driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and three documents were marked as Exhibits R1 to R3. Having heard the arguments on both sides, Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.14,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation and directed the respondent to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and award, both the parties have preferred appeals. 6. Sri D. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for appellant-KSRTC, would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident is solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus. It has taken clear contention before the Tribunal that the driver was driving the bus on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously and when he came near Nandi Gopinatha betta, the rider of the motorcycle was coming from the opposite direction in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, that too on the wrong side of the road. Noticing the same, the driver of the bus brought it to halt and stopped on the left side of the road. In spite of it, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 the rider of the motorcycle, losing control, came and dashed against the front right side corner of the bus, fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He submits that, because of the negligence of the rider of motorcycle, the accident occurred, and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error fixing the entire negligence only on the Driver of the bus. He would further submit that PW1 Smt. Yashodamma mother of deceased, is not an eye-witness or complainant. PW2-L. Varadaraju, the alleged complainant, was not at the place of accident, and he also has not actually seen the accident. PW2 in his cross-examination has stated that he was going by KSRTC bus, but in the complaint as also in the evidence, he has stated that he was going on a two-wheeler. This inconsistent evidence contradicts the very presence of witness at the spot. PW2 further admits in the cross- examination that there was around 10 to 15 feet space at the right side of the bus. Hence, he submits that the rider of the motorcycle could have avoided the accident by proceeding on the remaining space. This only shows that the rider of the motorcycle went on the wrong side and dashed against the bus - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 which was stationed on the extreme left side of the road. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the document Exhibit P3-spot mahazar, Exhibit P4- spot sketch, Exhibit P5-Motor Vehicle Report. He submits that RW1 has also stated as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of motorcycle, which is also not considered by the Tribunal. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has committed error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and added 50% towards future prospects contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would submit that the Tribunal has further committed an error in deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased and awarded higher compensation. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal by dismissing the claim petition. 7. Sri K.H. Thimmaiah learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants, would submit that the Tribunal has properly assessed the evidence in accordance with law and facts, and has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely because of the negligent act on the part of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 driver of KSRTC bus. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded the just compensation. The Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000 per month as a driver and from agriculture. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation towards other conventional heads as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court. On all these grounds, he sought for modification of compensation by enhancing the same. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire liability on the driver of the KSRTC bus? 2. Whether the applicants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? Regarding Point No.1: 9. To prove the case of the petitioners, two witnesses were examined as PWs1 and 2 and sixteen documents were marked as per Exhibits P1 to P16. A perusal of the documents viz. complaint, FIR, spot mahazar, spot sketch, motor vehicle - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 inspection report, postmortem report as also charge-sheet, reveals that based on the complaint filed by PW2-Varadaraj, Chikkaballapur Police registered a case in Crime No.311 of 2014 against K.T. Suresh Babu driver of KSRTC Bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and submitted First Information Report to the court. Police visited the spot, conducted spot panchanama, prepared sketch, obtained motor vehicle report, postmortem report of the deceased, recorded statement of witnesses and after investigation, Investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the bus for the aforesaid offences. 10. PW2-Varadaraju, who is said to be the eyewitness, has deposed in his evidence that at the time of accident, he was going on a two-wheeler. Whereas, in the cross- examination he has deposed that he was travelling in the bus. This material inconsistent evidence will create doubt as to PW2 witnessing the accident. Hence, his evidence cannot be accepted. Soon after the accident, RW1 has lodged complaint to the police against the rider of the motorcycle through registered post. But the concerned police have not taken any - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 action on the said complaint. Further, from the sketch it is seen that the width of the road, at the spot of the accident, is admittedly, 20 feet. Meticulous examination of the Exhibits P4- rough sketch and P5-spot mahazar placed before us, makes it evident that the width of the road at the place of accident is 16 feet and the place of accident is a curve. The photographs produced by the respondent would reveal that the motorcycle is at the front right wheel of the bus and the bus has not run over the motorcycle. It could also be seen that the rider of motorcycle was not wearing headgear at the time of accident. The photographs further reveal that half portion of the bus was on the mud road. All these materials goes to show that the driver of the bus was driving vehicle in a controllable speed and only for that reason, the bus had not run over the motorcycle. Since the rider of the motorcycle rode the same in high speed, he might have lost control and dashed against the bus. Considering the evidence of RW1 and other materials placed before us, we are of the considered view that contributory negligence has to be attributed on the rider of the motorcycle. Accordingly, the contributory negligence is attributed in the ratio of 75:25 as against the driver of KSRTC bus and the rider - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 of motorcycle, respectively. Accordingly, we answer point number one, partly in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 11. With regard to submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation is concerned, PW1 the mother of the deceased has stated in her evidence that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 30 years, was a driver by profession earning Rs.20,000/- per month, and he was also having income from agriculture and he was the only earning member in the family. Petitioner No.3 is the father of the deceased who is paralyzed. The RTC extract stands in the name of the father of deceased. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. Since the petitioners have not placed any proof as to the income of the deceased, it is just and proper to assess the income based on the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. According to the chart, for the accidents of the year 2014, notional income is to be taken at Rs.8,500/- per month. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% is to be added to the income towards future prospects. Then the income would be Rs.11,900/- per month. As the dependents are three in number, the Tribunal has deducted one-third towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the same is proper. After deduction towards personal expenses, income of the deceased would come to Rs.7,933/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased would be 17. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of dependence would be Rs.16,18,332/- (Rs.7,933/- x 12 x 17). As regards compensation towards conventional heads is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards consortium Rs.60,000/- towards love and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for revised compensation as under: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 Sl.No. Head of compensation Amount in Rs. 1. Towards Loss of dependency 16,18,332.00 2. Towards loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 3) 1,20,000.00 3. Towards loss of estate 15,000.00 4. Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000.00 Total 17,68,332.00 12. Since this Court has held that the rider of motorcycle has contributed to the accident in an extent of 25%, out of the total compensation awarded, 25% is to be deducted and remaining amount with interest be paid to the appellant/claimants. Accordingly, we answer Point No.2, partly in the affirmative. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Both appeals are all allowed in part; ii) The Judgment and award dated 23rd September 2016, passed in MVC No.3727 of 2016 by the VII Additional Judge, XXXII ACMM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, is modified holding that the appellants or entitled for compensation of Rs.13,26,249/- as against Rs.15,38,000/- awarded by the Tribunal; - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25417-DB MFA No. 2769 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 8219 of 2016 iii) The compensation amount carries interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit; iv) Respondent-KSRTC shall deposit the compensation amount accrued interest within eight weeks before the Tribunal; v) Amount deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal fourth with for onward disbursal to the claimants; vi) Apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal; vii) Draw award accordingly; viii) Registry to send the trial court records along with the copy of this Judgment to the consent, Court forthwith; ix) Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1