- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200087 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200783 OF 2022(MV-D) IN MFA.NO.200087/2022: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGING DIRECTOR NEKRTC BIDAR DIVISION, BIDAR (MD) NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JHARANAMMA W/O PRABHU AGED: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. PRABHU S/O AMBJJI AGED: 43 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, NOW NIL PATIENT, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 3. GANGASHETTY S/O PRABHU AGED 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, 4. ASHWINI D/O PRABHU AGED 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT ALL ARE RESIDENT AMDALPAD, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE TRIAL COURT RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE CHALLENGING JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2021 IN MVC NO. 497/2019, BEFORE IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR. IN M.F.A. NO.200783 OF 2022: BETWEEN: 1. JHARNAMMA W/O PRABHU, AGED: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD 2. PRABHU S/O AMBJJI, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, NOW NIL PATIENT. 3. GANGASHETTY S/O PRABHU AGED 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 4. ASHWINI D/O PRABHU, AGED 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, ALL RESIDENTS AMDALPAD, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEKRTC BIDAR, DIVISION BIDAR (MD), TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO. 497/2019 AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AWARD DATED 21.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 497/2019 IN THE COURT OF 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and hence, they are taken up together. 2. MFA No.200087/2022 is filed by the North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bidar Division, Bidar [for short, ‘the NEKRTC’], challenging the liability fixed on it whereas MFA No.200783/2022 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 21.09.2021 passed in MVC No.497/2019 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Bidar. 3. The parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. 5. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that they have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.28,80,000/- for the death of Sangmesh son of the first and second claimants in a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.07.2019 at about 8.20 p.m. It is alleged by the claimants that on 19.07.2019 at about 8.20 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-38/V- 9097 returning to his village Amdalpad, when he came near Sai High School and Kannadamba Circle, at that time NEKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-38/F-1186 came from opposite direction in a high speed and dashed to the deceased Sangamesh, due to which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The driver of the NEKRTC bus said to have ran away from the spot and even not provided medical aid to Sangamesh. After receipt of FIR, the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus for the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and also filed charge sheet against the deceased rider of the motor cycle for the offence punishable under Section 181 (3) of M.V. Act. The claimants have contended that the deceased was working as a Mason in construction field and earning Rs.21,000/- per month. Due to the untimely death, the claimants have lost earning family member and therefore, they claimed compensation under various heads. 6. In pursuance of the notice to NEKRTC, they filed statement of objections denying the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus and it has taken contention that the bus was driving in right direction and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased himself who came and dashed the bus and therefore, NEKRTC is not liable to pay any compensation. The police have concocted the document and filed charge sheet against only driver of the bus by leaving the rider of the motor cycle. The NEKRTC further denied the age - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 occupation, income and other relief claimed by the claimants as false and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues as under: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 19-7-2019 at about 8.20 pm near Sai High School when deceased returning on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA 38 V 9097 on proper left side at the time offending NEKSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA 38 F 1186 drive in high speed rash and negligent manner and dashed to deceased Sangamesh as such he sustained grievous injuries and he was died on the spot? 2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves the violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. What order or Award?” 8. In order to prove the contention of the petitioners, second petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and also examined one more witness as PW-2 and got - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 marked 14 documents. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the NEKRTC bus was examined as RW-1 but no documents were marked. 9. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative, issue No.3 in the partly affirmative and finally awarded a compensation of Rs.16,87,000/- under the following heads: Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/- Towards transportation of dead body, funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.16,87,000/- 10. The Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay compensation on the respondent-NEKRTC. Feeling aggrieved by the same, NEKRTC has filed MFA No.200087/2022 whereas the claimants have filed MFA No.200783/2022 for enhancement. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 11. Learned counsel for NEKRTC has vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the liability solely on NEKRTC even though the charge sheet came to be filed against both the driver of NEKRTC as well as rider of motor cycle and wrongly recorded that bus came on the wrong side, whereas the motor cycle came on wrong side and hit the bus which is revealed in Ex.P-6 which is not properly considered by the Tribunal. He further contended that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess driving license to ride the motor cycle. Such being the case, fastening the liability on the NEKRTC is not correct. Alternatively he prays that atleast the liability should be fixed on both the rider as well as driver as contributory negligence on their part. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. However, he has also contended that the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month is meager. Even in the Lok - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 Adalath, according to the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income is considered at Rs.13,250/- per month and hence, he prayed to allow their appeal and dismiss the appeal of NEKRTC. 13. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the claimants prove that the accident in question dated 19.07.2019 has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of NEKRTC bus by its driver? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in respect of finding on issue No.1 call for interference? (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. If so, what amount? 14. We have perused the entire Trial Court records especially Ex.P-3. The complaint and the Ex.P-3 reveal - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 that the accident dated 19.07.2019 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of NEKRTC bus which came from Kannadambe Circle towards Sai Public School road whereas the deceased rider came from opposite direction in his motor cycle and there was an accident and due to the accident the deceased died on the spot. The bus driver even without providing any medical aid or informing to the police, ran away from the spot. The police have charge sheeted against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC for rash and negligent driving and Section 304A of IPC for causing death by negligence, apart from Section 187 of M.V. Act for not informing about the accident to the police or providing any medical aid to the deceased. Whereas the police also charge sheeted against the rider of the motor cycle for not holding the driving license under Section 181(3) of M.V. Act. 15. We have also considered the document Ex.P-5 the spot mahazar which reveals that the accident has - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 occurred, the NEKRTC bus got damaged on the front right side bumper and head light and the motor cycle’s dome got totally damaged on the front side. Ex.P-6 the Motor Vehicles Accident Report reveals about the two damages caused to both the vehicles. It states that the front right side bumper of the bus got damaged and front side head lights are broken. On perusal of these damages, it is clear that the accident had occurred with the head on collision at the right side of the bus and the motor cycle was totally damaged. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for NEKRTC is that motor cycle rider came on the wrong side and he has contributed for the accident. He alternatively contends that contributory negligence may be fixed on the rider of the motor cycle. But on perusal of the charge sheet, Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 it is clear that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. That apart, the rider of the motor cycle did not came from the wrong side. If at all he had came from - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 wrong side, the damage would have caused on the left side of the bus but not on the right side. The damage caused to the bus is on the right side head light as well as right side bumper. It is ipso facto reveals that accident occurred on the right side of the bus. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the NEKRTC cannot be acceptable. We find that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal, by considering the evidence on record, including the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, has rightly held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of NEKRTC bus. 17. That apart, even though RW-1 the driver of the bus was examined before the Tribunal, except his ocular evidence, there is no other evidence. He has also not examined any independent eyewitness either passenger of the bus or conductor of the bus to show that there was no negligence on his part and rider of the motor cycle was negligent. Therefore, this Court also holds that this - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 accident has occurred purely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of NEKRTC bus. The charge sheet was not challenged by the bus driver before the High Court for quashing the same. Such being the case, the Tribunal has rightly held there is no rebuttal evidence and negligence was fixed on the driver of the bus. 18. That apart, even if the rider of motor cycle does not hold the driving license, that is not having any consequence though the charge sheet is filed under Section 181 of M.V. Act. Such being the case, we do not find any error in the Tribunal’s order fixing the liability on the NEKRTC. Accordingly we answer point No.1 in favour of the claimants and against NEKRTC. 19. As regards the computation of compensation, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- even though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.21,000/- as a Mason. According to the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 notional income can be considered at Rs.13,250/- per month. Accordingly, we take the income of the deceased at Rs.13,250/- per month. The Tribunal has added 40% towards future prospects and awarded compensation. Except taking the income on the lower side, there is no other dispute from the claimants. The deceased was a bachelor, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1, 50% of his income is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Accordingly, we consider the income of the deceased at Rs.13,250/- per month and the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is calculated as under: Computation of loss of dependency Description Amount Income Rs.13,250.00 Addition to such income at the rate 40% towards future prospects Rs.5,300.00 Monthly Income with the addition towards future prospects Rs.18,550.00 1 2009 ACJ 1298 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses Rs.9275.00 Monthly income with addition of future prospects and deduction towards personal expenses Rs.9275.00 Therefore, Annual Income Rs.1,11,300.00 Multiplier 18 Loss of Dependency Rs.20,03,400.00 20. Thus the loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,03,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. We do not find any error with the same. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, we propose to award Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the compensation is re-assessed as under: Description Amount Loss of dependency Rs.20,03,400.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4) Rs.1,60,000.00 Conventional head Rs.30,000.00 Total Rs.21,93,400.00 Award of the Tribunal Rs.16,87,000.00 Enhanced Compensation Rs.5,06,400.00 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 21. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by NEKRTC is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 21.09.2021 passed in MVC No.497/2019 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Bidar is modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,06,400/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB MFA No. 200087 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022 (iv) The apportionment made by the Tribunal is unaltered. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal along with Trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:SI