- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3974 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. V.S. MANJULAMMA, W/O. LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA V.N. AGED 37 YEARS, 2. R. HEMA, D/O. LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA V.N. AGED 15 YEARS, 3. R. VIJAYALAKSHMI @ VINUTHA, D/O. LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA V.N. AGED 11 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.50, OROHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, AND HENCE THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FIRST APPELLANT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. 2. NAZEER KHAN, S/O. RAHEEM KHAN, MAJOR, R/O. GOWNIPALLY VILLAGE, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, RAYALPADU HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.2702/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6th January 2014, passed by the XXII Addl.Small Causes Judge and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 M.A.C.T., Bengaluru, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2702/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal were that : On 18.01.2012, at about 11.45 p.m., the deceased, V.N.Rudramuniyappa, was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No.KA-07-T-7128, on Bengaluru-Kolar, National Highway No.4, near Attur gate, the said tractor was hit by a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-40-F- 632, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injury on the way to the hospital. 4. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was aged 45 years. He was an agriculturist and driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants being the wife and children were dependant upon his - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 5. Respondent No.1-KSRTC (Corporation) denied the contentions of the claim petitioners and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the tractor i.e., deceased. The claimants are not entitled to claim the compensation, as ex gratia amount of Rs.15,000/- was given to the legal heirs of the deceased. The claim petition is not maintainable. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 14 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.1 has examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the materials available on record, by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 impugned judgment, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that accident occurred due to the exclusive negligence of driver of the tractor. 9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that, although it was true that at the time of the accident the deceased was driving his tractor on the wrong side of the road, specifically on the extreme southern side, the driver of the bus negligently hit the said tractor; The width of the road at the spot of the accident was around 25 ft. and RW-1 admits that at a time, two busses could ply on the said road; Had the driver of the offending KSRTC bus took some more care and caution, he could have avoided the accident; The said fact was not considered by the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the claimants examined PW-2, who was an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 eye witness and a passenger in the said tractor; He has stated about the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver; Since the driver of the tractor died in the accident, the driver of the KSRTC bus lodged the complaint and on that basis, the deceased was charge sheeted; The police have not investigated the case properly; The Tribunal has not considered these facts and has erroneously dismissed the claim petition. Hence, prayed to allow the claim petition and to award the compensation. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation vehemently contended that there is no error in the findings of the Tribunal. The deceased was the driver of the tractor. He was driving on the wrong side of the road, and moreover he was on the extreme northern side, which indicates a high degree of negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. Under such circumstances, claimants cannot make grievance against the Investigating Officer. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 13. Learned counsel further contended that deceased was charge sheeted in the accident in question. In view of the same, there is no question of any negligence on the part of driver of the KSRTC bus. Hence, prayed to confirm the impugned judgment and to dismiss the appeal. 14. The materials available on record revealed that driver of the bus was going from Bengaluru towards Kolar side and he was in right way on the double road. The driver of the tractor was coming on the wrong side of the road. The said tractor hit against the right side of the bus, which is mentioned in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. These facts are not in serious dispute. 15. The driver of the bus was examined as RW-1, and a coolie who was travelling in the tractor was examined as PW-2. It was not the evidence of RW-1 that the tractor suddenly came to the wrong side of the road, or that the tractor did not have headlights at the time of the accident. When the road was straight, considering the negligent act of the driver of the tractor, who was coming - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 from the wrong side of the road, the driver of the bus could have exercised caution and either stopped the vehicle or moved to the extreme left side of the road to avoid a collision between the vehicles. RW-1 has not explained the reasons why he was unable to stop his vehicle or avoid the accident. 16. Looking at the said facts, it appears that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of both vehicles. As already stated, the greater share of negligence lies with the driver of the tractor (the deceased), as he moved towards the wrong side of the road. Therefore, the major contribution to the accident was that of the tractor driver. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the negligence of driver of the tractor is taken as 75% and the driver of the bus is taken as 25%. 17. The Tribunal has not assessed the compensation since it dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 the tractor i.e., deceased. Instead of remanding the matter solely for the purpose of assessing compensation, this Court can assess the compensation itself, as the necessary materials are already on record. 18. According to the evidence of the claimants, deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, which is on the higher side and there are no materials to prove it. Hence, following the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7000/- per month. 19. According to Ex.P-8 - copy of voter card, the deceased was aged about 48 years. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Pranay Sethi1, 25% of the income is to be added towards future prospects. The multiplier applicable to the case on hand is `13'. There are three dependents to the deceased, therefore, 1/3rd of his income has to be 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 deducted towards personal expenses. On that basis, `loss of dependency' is assessed. 20. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram,2 the compensation has to be awarded under the conventional heads. 21. Accordingly, the following compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency (Rs.7,000/- +25% x 12 x 13 x 2/3) 9,10,000/- Loss of love and affection 1,20,000/- Funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Total 10,60,000/- 22. The deceased has contributed 75% for causing the accident. Therefore, claimants are entitled to 25% of 2 (2018) SC 1247 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 the above amount i.e., Rs.2,65,000/-. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate 6% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realization. 23. The claimants are wife and children. Compensation is apportioned in the ratio of 50%:25%:25% respectively between the claimants No.1 to 3. 24. The respondent No.1-Corporation being the owner of the offending bus, is liable to pay the above amount of compensation. 25. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 6th January 2014, passed in MVC.No.2702/2012, by the XXII Addl.Small Causes Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru, stands modified. iii) The claim petition in MVC.No.2702/2012 is allowed in part. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 iv) The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,65,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. v) The compensation is apportioned in the ratio of 50%: 25%: 25% between claimants No.1 to 3 respectively with proportionate interest. vi) Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are minors, therefore, entire amount of compensation apportioned to them shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank of the choice of the guardian, till they attain the age of majority. vii) The amount of compensation awarded in favour of claimant No.1-wife of the deceased, shall be released in her favour on due identification. viii) The respondent-Corporation shall deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of the award. xi) Draw award accordingly. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30018 MFA No. 3974 of 2014 Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12