- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.553 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, BENGALURU CHIKKAMAGALORE DIVISION CHIKKAMANGALORE-577 101 REPRESENED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S. GEETHA C H W/O LATE BOOTHESH P J AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. B G PREETHAM S/O LATE BOOTHESH P J AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 3. B G HEMACHANDRA SAGAR S/O LATE BOOTHESH P J AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE R/O HARIYABBE VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 599. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATHISHA T., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.07.2023 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HIRIYUR IN MVC NO.284/2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Smt. Sumangala A.Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri Sathisha T., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Respondent No.1 in MVC No.284/2021 has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hiriyur, Chitradurga. 3. The respondents/claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased Boothesh, filed a claim petition seeking compensation on account of his death, which occurred as a result of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 01.02.2021 at about 11.10 a.m., involving a KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-0924. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus. It is further pleaded that, prior to the accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by working as a car driver. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 3.1 The appellant–Corporation, upon service of notice, entered appearance and filed its statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. The age and avocation of the deceased have also been specifically denied. 3.2 Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. On behalf of the respondents, their official was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1 was marked. 3.3 The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. Considering the age of the deceased as 40 years, the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.21,000/- on the basis of Ex.P-17, namely, the I.D. Card issued by M/s. Janani Tours. 3.4 The Tribunal added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and deducted one-third towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. By adopting a multiplier of 15, it awarded a sum of Rs.35,28,000/- (Rs.19,600/- × 12 × 15) towards loss of dependency. In addition, compensation was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 awarded under the conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.36,18,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 4. Smt. Sumangala A. Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Corporation, submits that the assessment of the deceased’s income at Rs.21,000/- per month by the Tribunal is without any legal basis. She further contends that mere possession of a driving licence is insufficient to conclude that the deceased was employed as a driver and was earning Rs.21,000/- per month. It is also submitted that there is no cogent or corroborative evidence on record to substantiate the income of the deceased. 5. Sri Sathisha T., learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal is based on cogent and reliable evidence available on record. He further contends that the compensation awarded under all heads is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 7. The Tribunal has recorded the age of the deceased as 40 years, deducted one-third towards his personal and living expenses, added 40% of assessed income towards future prospects, and awarded compensation under the conventional heads. The aforesaid aspects are not in dispute. 7.1 The sole contention urged by the appellant–Corporation in the present appeal pertains to the correctness of the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. It is specifically contended that Ex.P-17, namely the I.D. Card, is not sufficient to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.21,000/- per month. 7.2 Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila vs. Ram Swaroop [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-129, dated 01.05.2023], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2012. 7.3 The accident in the present case occurred in the year 2021, and the deceased was holding a valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The other evidence on record, namely Ex.P18, as referred to by the Tribunal, indicates that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 the deceased had taken a vehicle on hire and was earning a substantial income therefrom. Ex.P18 substantially establishes that the deceased was operating a taxi vehicle. 7.4 In view of the evidence available on record, the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.21,000/- cannot be said to be erroneous or without basis. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant–Corporation that the notional income prescribed in the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority ought to have been adopted cannot be accepted. The notional income as per the said chart is to be applied only in the absence of evidence. When there is cogent evidence available before the Court, the same has to be considered while assessing the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the assessment of income at Rs.21,000/- per month by the Tribunal, based on Exs.P17 and P18, is justifiable and does not call for interference. 8. We find no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7874-DB MFA No. 553 of 2024 9. The amount lying in deposit before this Court shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. The balance compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant– Corporation before the concerned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5