- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8252 MFA No. 1038 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1038 OF 2021(MV-D) BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MANGALURU DEPOT, MANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY KARNATAKA STATE, ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFCER, BENGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. S. NIRMMALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE T.M. SWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. NANDINI, D/O LATE T.M. SWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8252 MFA No. 1038 of 2021 3. RANJINI, D/O LATE T.M. SWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. RAKESHA, S/O LATE T.M.SWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT THATTEKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK DISTRICT-573201. …RESPONDENTS (R1,R2,R3,R4- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1145/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8252 MFA No. 1038 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms.Nirmala learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Though notice was served upon respondents, respondents failed to appear and contest. 3. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan in MVC No.1145/2018 dated 08.06.2020. Respondent No.1 being the wife, respondent Nos.2 to 4 being the children of the deceased T.M.Swamygowda (hereinafter be referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity). filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2017 and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of appellant herein. The Tribunal gave a finding to the effect that the claimants established that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of appellant and thereby directed appellant to pay - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8252 MFA No. 1038 of 2021 the claimants a sum of Rs.6,47,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 4. Projecting that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on part of the deceased, this appeal is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was riding his bike without holding valid and effective driving license and without wearing helmet. Thus, due to his own negligence, he lost his life. However, the Tribunal without appreciating the defense taken by appellant, fastened liability upon appellant and therefore, this appeal is filed. Learned counsel also states that rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is on higher side. 6. As per the version of claimants, on 15.03.2017 at about 04.00 p.m. while the deceased was proceeding on his TVS bike, the driver of appellant's bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and dashed against the bike of the deceased thereby deceased - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8252 MFA No. 1038 of 2021 sustained fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment. There is no denial of the fact that a complaint was given to police against the driver of appellant basing on which a case was registered and was investigated into. Further, there is no denial by appellant that police after due investigation laid charge sheet against its driver i.e., the driver of the bus only. No convincing material whatsoever is on record to show that the deceased was negligent or that he contributed for the accident to occur. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in fastening liability upon appellant and directing appellant to pay compensation to the claimants. 7. So far as rate of interest is concerned, as rightly contented by learned counsel for the appellant, for the relevant period, taking into consideration the rate of interest fixed by banking sector, interest ought to have been fixed by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 9% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8252 MFA No. 1038 of 2021 ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. (iii) Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24