- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23112 OF 2013 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102737 OF 2020 IN MFA NO. 23112 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BIDARI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, SS FRONT ROAD, BIJAPUR NOW REP BY ITS ASST. MANAGER BALAKRISHNA K NAYAK, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O AMAREGOUDA GOUDAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC BUS DRIVER, NOW NIL, R/O: KOMALAPUR, TQ: LINGASUR, DIST: RAICHUR. 2. SMT. SHARADA W/O ASHOK KOTI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: SHIVA PRASAD MIO-12, KHB COLONY, SOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR. 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADV FOR R1, SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADV FOR R3, SRI. SYED R.H, ADV FOR R3, R2 SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:06-04-2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.654/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT.NO.X, HUNAGUND, AWARDING THE COMPENSAITON OF RS.1,03,347/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PEITTION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, IN MFA NO. 102737 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NWKRTC, BAGALKOT NAVARNAGAR, BAGALKOT REP BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SURYAKANTH S/O ANAND KURLE AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. GOVE SERVICE IN SERICULTURE DEPT. R/O. BIJAPUR NO.31, ACHARKATTI ROAD, NOW AT KAMATAGI, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. SHARAD W/O ASHOK KOTI SHIVAPRASAD MIG-12, KHB COLONY, SOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BIDARI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, SS FRONG ROAD, BIJAPUR, SUMMONS THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NEAR RTO OFFICE, BAGALKOT, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-587102 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 POLICY NO.422002/31/2010/739 VALIDITY FROM 29.05.2009 TO 28.05.2010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI AND SRI. C.S.NAGASHETTI, ADVS FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.91/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-X, HUNGUND, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,40,978/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. MFA No.23112/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 06.04.2013 passed in MVC No.654 of 2010 by the MACT-X, Hunagund, and MFA 102737/2020 is filed by the NWKRTC challenging the judgment and award dated 07.02.2020 passed in MVC No.91/2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident, and they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: On 02.06.2009, the petitioner in MVC No.91 of 2017 was travelling in a NWKSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.29/F- 778. After crossing Nagur village, the driver of the bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, the driver of the lorry had parked his lorry on the left side of the road without indicators or precautions, to which the Bus hit and the accident occurred. The petitioner sustained the injuries in the said accident. The petitioner in MVC No.654 of 2010, who was the driver of the KSRTC bus, also sustained injuries in the accident. Both petitioners, filed a claim petitions stating that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the lorry by parking it without any precaution or indicators. Hence, they filed a claim petitions under Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petitions. 4. In both cases, the owner of the lorry remained absent, despite the service of a notice, and was placed ex parte. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections, separately in both cases, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as he had parked on the left side of the road. There is negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. The driver did not possess a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident, and there is a violation of the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 6. NWKRTC filed a statement of objections in MVC 91/2017 denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending lorry had parked the vehicle on the road without any indicators and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 precautions. Thus, there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against NWKRTC. 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues in both the claim petitions. 8. The Petitioner in MVC 654 of 2010 was examined as PW1, the doctor was examined as PW2, and marked 204 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.204. Conversely, the respondents have not led any evidence, However, marked one document as Exhibit R1 with consent. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in MVC 654 of 2010 in part vide judgment dated 06.04.2013 and awarded a compensation of ₹1,03,347/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 10. In MVC No.91 of 2017, the petitioner was examined as PW1, one witness was examined as PW2 ,and 17 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P17. In rebuttal, the Authorized Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW1, the driver cum conductor of the Bus, was examined as RW.2, and marked 3 documents as Exhibits R1 to R3. 11. The Tribunal, after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in MVC No. 91/2017 in part with cost vide judgment dated 07.02.2020 and awarded a compensation of ₹2,40,978/- and held that the insurance company and the NWKRTC liable to pay the compensation in the ratio of 50:50 ,and directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within a statutory period. 12. The insurance company, aggrieved by the judgment passed in MVC 654 of 2010, preferred an appeal in MFA No.23112 of 2013, and the NWKRTC, aggrieved by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 judgment and award passed in MVC 91 of 2017, preferred an appeal in MFA 102737 of 2020. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, the learned counsel for the NWKRTC, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal, in MVC No.91/2017 considering that there was negligence on the part of both, the driver of the KSRTC and the driver of the lorry, had fastened the liability on both the insurance company as well as the NWKRTC in the ratio of 50:50. Whereas, the Tribunal MVC No.654/2010 committed an error in fastening the entire liability on the insurance company. He submits that the driver of the bus had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal should have fastened the liability both on the insurance company as well as the NWKRTC in the ratio of 50:50. Thus the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the entire liability on the insurance company in MVC No.654/2010. He, further submits that the petitioner in MVC 654/2010 is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 working as the driver in the NWKRTC and even after the accident, he continued to be in service. Therefore, he is not entitled to compensation under the head loss of future earning capacity. He submits that the Tribunal, without considering this aspect, has awarded compensation under the head of loss of future earnings. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to modify the judgment and award passed in MVC 654 of 2010 and accordingly, prays to fasten the liability on both, the insurance company as well as the NWKRTC in the ratio of 50:50. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation under the head loss of future income, as the petitioner even after the accident continued in service. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to modify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC 654 of 2010. 16. Learned counsel for the NWKRTC submits that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, and he submits that the petitioner in MVC 91 of 2013 is in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 Government service, and even after the accident, he continued to be in service. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation under the head loss of future income. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the NWKRTC. 17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner, even after the accident, is continued to be in service and he is not entitled to compensation for the loss of future income. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dispose of the appeal in MFA No.102737/2020. 18. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 19. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. 20. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and also regarding the injuries suffered by the petitioners in the road traffic accident. A charge sheet at Ex.P- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 6 and EX. P3 in both the petitions, is filed against the driver of the lorry, and the driver of the KSRTC. 21. The petitioner in MVC 91 of 2017 is a Government servant, and the petitioner in MVC No.654/2010 is a Driver, , and both, even after the accident, continued to be in service. Hence, they are not entitled to compensation under the head loss of future earnings. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation under the head of loss of future earnings. Regarding Liability: 22. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the drivers of both the vehicles, the petitioner produced a copy of the charge sheet marked as Exhibit P3 in MVC 654 of 2010. Both of them had contributed to the accident. In MVC No.91 of 2017, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability both, on the NWKRTC and the insurance company in the ratio of 50:50, whereas the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company in MVC No.654/2010. Thus, both the insurance - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 company and the NWKRTC are liable to pay the compensation in the ratio 50:50 in MVC No. 654/2010. 23. Regarding quantum of compensation: As aforementioned, since the petitioners are not entitled to compensation under the head loss of future earnings, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.74,867/- in MVC No.654/2010, and the petitioner in MVC No.91/2017 is entitled to a reduced compensation of Rs.53,220/-. The rest of the award remains intact. 24. In view of the above discussion the points are answered accordingly. 25. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. MFA No.23112/2013 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 06.04.2013 passed in MVC No.654/2010 is modified. The petitioner is entitled to re-assessed compensation of ₹74,867/- as against ₹1,03,347/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12025 MFA No. 23112 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 102737 of 2020 ii. In MVC NO. 654/2010, both the insurance company and the NWKRTC are liable to pay the compensation in the ratio of 50:50 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iii. MFA No.102737/2020 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 07.02.2020 passed in MVC No.91/2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is entitled to re-assessed compensation of ₹53,220/ as against Rs.2,40,978/- awarded by the Tribunal, which shall be paid by the insurance company and the KSRTC in the ratio of 50:50 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv. The rest of the judgment and awards passed by both the Tribunals are maintained. The office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit and the TCR to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv /CT: BSB