- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH 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.201964 OF 2024 (MV) BETWEEN: THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE REGIONAL OFFICE, TSRTC, BUS STAND COMPLEX, MAHABOOB NAGAR, (TELANGANA STATE)-500037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S. V. DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. B. RAJESHWARI @ RAJESHWARI, W/O LATE BOYA SUDARSHAN, AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. VENUKUMAR S/O LATE BOYA SUDARSHAN, AGE: 21 YEARS OCC: STUDENT, 3. BOYA SWATHIG D/O LATE BOYA SUDARSHAN, AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KRISHNA VILLAGE, DIST. NARAYANAPET (TS), NOW RESIDING AT MANIK NAGAR, NEAR BRB CIRCLE, RAICHUR-584101 Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 4. MURALI S/O KAMANNA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TSRTC, BUS BEARING NO.AP-28/Z-2876, R/O RAJAPALLI VILLAGE, NARAVALA MANDALA, NARAYANAPET, DIST. TS-500037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. G. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R-4 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT RAICHUR AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO.575/2021 DATED 13.10.2023 AND TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AWARDED AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST THIS APPEAL, 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the TSRTC as against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Raichur in MVC No.575/2021 dated 13.10.2023. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that they have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one Boya Sudarshan who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 27.05.2021. It is alleged that on the said date at about 8.00 a.m., when the deceased was proceeding along with his wife (who had also filed claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the very same accident) on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP-22/AA-5587 from Krishna village to Yeli Gandal village riding slowly and cautiously on the extreme left side of the road, at that time TSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.28/Z-2876 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased’s motor cycle, due to which the deceased died, the pillion rider sustained injuries. The pillion rider (wife of the deceased) and the children of deceased Sudarshan filed separate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 claim petitions and the Tribunal allowed the same. Appellant-TSRTC did not challenge the compensation awarded in the injury case. However, challenged the compensation awarded in the death case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, excessive even though no documents have been produced and the same requires interference. 5. We have perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The accident dated 27.05.2021 is not in dispute. Death of Boya Sudarshan in the said accident is also not in dispute. His wife also sustained injuries. Two claim petitions came to be filed. MVC No.541/2021 is filed by the wife of deceased who got injured in the said accident. MVC No.575/2021 is filed by the wife and children of deceased. The Tribunal allowed both the claim petitions. In the injury case [MVC No.541/2021], the Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.46,543/- and the same is not challenged by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 appellant - TSRTC. Both quantum as well as liability in the said case has attained finality. Whereas, in this case, the appellant-TSRTC has challenged the quantum of compensation. We have perused the award passed by the Tribunal. The only point that would arise for our consideration is Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is exorbitant, excessive, which calls for interference? 6. The accident is dated 27.05.2021 is not in dispute. As regards to compensation assessed by the Tribunal when there is no document produced for proof of income of the deceased, the Court is required to consider the income as per the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority. For the accident of the year 2021 the income required to be taken at Rs.14,250/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.14,250/-. The age of the deceased was more than 40 years, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1, 25% should be added to the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects, which comes to Rs.3,562.5/-. If the same is added to Rs.14,250/-, it comes to Rs.17,812.5/-. When there are three dependants, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased. The Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of income towards personal expenditure which comes to Rs.11,875/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.18,52,500/- (Rs.11,875 x 12 x 13 multiplier). 7. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram alias Chuhru Ram & others3, Rs.40,000/- to each claimant has been awarded by the 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 2009(6) SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 Tribunal towards loss of consortium i.e., spousal and parental consortium. Accordingly, Rs.1,20,000/- has been awarded towards loss of consortium. Conventional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses has been awarded by the Tribunal as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.20,02,500/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. On perusal of the assessment of compensation and award, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments. Therefore, we do not find any error in quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the same is not exorbitant which calls for interference by this Court for reducing the same. In view of the above - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1886-DB MFA No. 201964 of 2024 discussion, the above point is answered in the negative. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:SI