- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6807 OF 2019 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAYAMANI W/O LATE MANDANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KIRAGNDURU, SOMAVARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236. 2. K. DRAKSHAYENI, W/O LATE KISHORE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 3. K. THANVIK, S/O LATE KISHORE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, 4. N.K. TARUN KUMAR, S/O LATE KISHOREKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 RESPONDENT NO.3 & 4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, NAMELY K. DAKSHAYENI, RESPONDENT NO.2. RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT KIRAGANDURU, SOMAVARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236. 5. SHARADA BABAR, W/O LATE KISHOREKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 6. VIJAY, S/O LATE KISHOREKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.6 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SHARADA BABAR, RESPONDENT NO.5 RESPONDENT NO.5 & 6 ARE R/O MANCHAKALKUPPE VILLAGE, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, & DISTRICT – 572 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HARISH N.R. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PATEL D.KAREGOWDA ADVOCATE, FOR R1 TO R6; R3 & R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2; R6 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 11.06.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.87/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE VI-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,22,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the Corporation challenging the Judgment and award dated 11.06.2019, passed by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (‘Tribunal’ for short), on the ground of liability and quantum. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The brief factual matrix involved in this appeal are as under: In an accident occurred on 14.06.2016 at 10:30 am. Son of claimant No.1, husband of claimant Nos.2 and 5 and father of claimant Nos.3, 4 and 6 lost his life due to the actionable rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. The claimants for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 the death of late Kishore Kumar filed petition under Section 166 of I.M.V Act seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Corporation upon service of notice appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections, denying the entire petition averments. The Corporation has taken a specific contention regarding the occurrence of the accident contending that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus, but it was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased in riding his motorcycle resulted in the accident. The Corporation further contends that the rider of the motorcycle without observing any traffic rules abruptly ventured to cross the National Highway, without observing the oncoming vehicle, in that circumstance the accident has occurred, which is not at all attributable to the driver of the offending bus. The rider of the motorcycle should - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 have been more careful and circumspect while using the National Highway. The police have registered case against the driver of the bus, only on the fact that the bus is a heavy passenger vehicle, though the entire negligence was on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. It is further contended that though the driver of the bus tried to file complaint before the police, however, the police have declined to register the report. The rider of the motorcycle was not wearing helmet at the time of accident which is also a prime reason for the death in the accident. Further submitted that the compensation awarded is exorbitant. With this the Corporation sought to allow the appeal. The Tribunal after completion of pleadings framed in all four issues, wherein Issue No.1 is with respect to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus in causing accident resulting in death of the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and proceeded to award a sum of Rs.17,22,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 annum. It is this Judgment and award called in question in this appeal. 4. Heard Sri.F.S.Dabali., learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri.Harish.N.R., learned counsel for Sri.Patel D.Karegowda., for respondents 1 to 6. 5. Sri.F.S.Dabali., with all vehemence submits that on the eventful day, the bus was proceeding from Bengaluru towards Tumakuru. The road wherein the accident had occurred is a Highway bifurcated with a median and having two lanes on either side. The deceased who was coming from Tumakuru towards Bengaluru on his motorcycle, without any indication swerved his motorcycle to the right side through the space provided in between median to go on the other side without noticing the on coming KSRTC bus. Though the driver of the bus tried to avoid the accident by taking the bus on the extreme left side, but due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle who abruptly swerved on the right in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 highway to go to other side of the road, the inevitable accident has occurred, as such there is no negligence attributable to the driver of the bus. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the entire negligence is on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the claim petition on negligence attributable in its entirety on the rider of the motorcycle. In the alternative, if this Court is inclined to fasten some amount of negligence on the driver of the bus, the same may be with negligible percentage. In the factual background to an extent of 10% on the driver of the bus. 7. Alternatively, so far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has taken income at a higher value at Rs.8,000/- per month and added 40% towards future prospectus and awarded higher compensation. Further the Tribunal has awarded double compensation one under loss of consortium and another for love and affection. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 Accordingly, sought to reduce the compensation. With these twin grounds, he sought to allow the appeal. 8. Refuting the submissions of Sri.F.S.Dabali., learned counsel Sri.Harish.N.R., with all vehemence submits that as per the Police records, the deceased was coming from the opposite direction and after giving indication, took right turn to go to other side of the road. The driver of the bus despite noticing the same, has not slowed down the bus and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. He further submits that in an accident, it becomes relevant to ascertain who is driving the vehicle negligently and rashly and in case both were so doing, who among two is more responsible for the accident and who of the two had the best opportunity to avoid the accident. In the case on hand, it is the driver of the bus has got all ample opportunity having sufficient road on either side could have avoided the accident. In this circumstances, the entire negligence is attributable to the driver of the bus - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 which has been properly considered by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1. In these circumstances, there is no interference warrants with respect to the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1. 9. So far as quantum is concerned, Sri.Harish.N.R., submits that as per the chart prepared by the High Court Legal Service Authority for settling the case before the Lok-Adalat, a sum of Rs.9,500/- is fixed for the year 2016. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has considered Rs.8,000/- per month as income of the deceased, aged between 31 to 35 years, despite the evidence of the claimants that he was working as a Security Guard with the Shashi Detective Services Private Limited. The Field Executive Officer of Shashi Detective Services Private Limited has been examined as PW.3 to prove that the deceased was working as Security Guard and was paid Rs.10,000/- per month and the same would have been twice of the income existing had he continued in the work. In order to prove his income, the salary - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 certificate issued by Shashi Detective Services Private Limited was produced at Ex.P9. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. The Tribunal further has not considered the case of the claimants to award appropriate compensation for the loss of consortium in view of the fact that there are six claimants survived the deceased. The Tribunal under the principal of just compensation ought to have considered this aspect of the matter and awarded just compensation. The appeal being the continuation of proceedings, this Court exercising power under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC may award appropriate compensation within the principle of just compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross- objection by the claimants. With this, he sought to dismiss the appeal and enhance the compensation. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers along with Trial Court record. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 11. The questions that would arise for consideration before this Court is as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire negligence on the Driver of the bus? 2. Whether the Corporation has made out any case to reduce the compensation? 12. My answer to the first point is partly in affirmative and to the second point is in the Negative for the following: REASONS 13. A perusal of the spot sketch at Ex.P6 clearly indicates that the accident had occurred near the edge of the road on the left side. Admittedly, the bus was plying from Bengaluru to Tumakuru and the motorcycle was coming from the opposite way i.e., from Tumakuru to Bengaluru. The rider of the motorcycle had taken a right turn at the accident spot to go towards his native Manchakalkuppe. The sketch clearly indicates that the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 accident occurred due to the negligence driving of the bus driver, however it cannot be lost sight that the rider of the motorcycle has also contributed to the accident as he abruptly took his motorcycle on the right side without noticing the oncoming bus. A user of road owes reciprocal duties of care and caution with other road users. In these circumstances, without much deliberation, on the basis of spot sketch which indicates that there is negligence even on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, but the fact remains is the negligence if to be fastened at what percentage. As rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants that if the rash and negligent driving is attributable to both the driver- rider, then who among the two had the last chance to avoid the accident assumes importance. In the case on hand, the spot sketch clearly shows that the driver had ample chance of avoiding the accident. In these circumstances, the major negligence is attributable to the driver of the bus. In these circumstances, if the negligence - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 is shared at 20% on the rider of the motorcycle and 80% on the driver of the bus, the same would meet the ends of justice. 14. However, looking to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, given the factual background, the same appears to be inadequate. The accident occurred in the year 2016. The income as per the chart stated supra is Rs.9,500/- and so far as the evidence on record, the income of the deceased as stated by the claimants was Rs.10,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of consortium. The Tribunal has awarded consortium in a sum of Rs.80,000/-. The claim petition was filed by six claimants who survived the deceased. In these circumstances, in view of the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM & OTHERS, reported in 2018 ACJ PAGE 2782 each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘Loss of consortium’. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 Accordingly, the same would come to Rs.2,40,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for 10% escalation on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads from 2017 for each completed three years. In view of the same, though the contributory negligence is taken at 80% on the driver and in the event, the compensation is re- determined, the same would remain with the compensation awarded by Tribunal under challenge and may be more than the one awarded. In these circumstances, though the appellant-Corporation has succeeded on contributory negligence, but so far as quantum is concerned, despite the negligence is fastened on the deceased at 20%, the compensation awarded if re- determined within the expression just compensation would remain the same. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is retained. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and award dated 11.06.2019 in M.V.C No.87/2017 passed by VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru awarding compensation of Rs.17,22,800/- (Rs.17,37,800/- – Rs.15,000/- paid as interim compensation has been deducted by the Tribunal) with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. ii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. iii) The Corporation shall deposit the balance amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52937 MFA No. 6807 of 2019 iv) Upon deposit, apportionment and disbursement is as per the order of the tribunal. v) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court record along with copy of this order to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. vi) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 ct-vn