- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST 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.3823 OF 2025(MV-D) BETWEEN: MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, (SELF INSURANCE) CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU-560 027 (KSRTC BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-18-F-0893) NOW REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE SHANTHINAGARA, K. H. ROAD BENGALURU-560 027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI F. S. DABALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VEENA B W/O. LATE JAGADEESH M. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. KUMARI JAHNAVI J. D/O. LATE JAGADEESH M. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 R/AT NO.9, 2ND MAIN, KGS LAYOUT BENGALURU NORTH, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. H. SOMASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.145/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-15, BENGALURU, SCCH-15, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.62,81,050/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation(for short ‘Corporation’) is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 27.01.2025 in MVC No. 145/2023 on the file of XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’) aggrieved by the saddling - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 of 100% negligence upon the driver of the Corporation Bus as well as the compensation granted to the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.2022 at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased was crossing the road in Majestic, the Corporation bus bearing Reg.No.KA-18-F-0893 dashed against the deceased, which led to a head injury being caused to the deceased and the consequent death on 19.11.2022. It is submitted that the deceased was aged 54 years as on the date of the accident; was working as a PDO at Chikkaballapura and was earning Rs. 66,000/- per month. 3. Before the Tribunal, upon issuance of notice, the Corporation filed its detailed objections to the claim petition averments denying the averments in its entirety, including the negligence attributable to the driver of the Corporation bus. On behalf of the claimants, the claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW1, apart from marking Exs.P1 to P30. On behalf of the Corporation, the learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 counsel for the Corporation examined Smt. Pavitra, PDO Chikkaballapura as RW1 and the conductor of the offending bus Sri. Madhusudhan as RW2.The tribunal upon examination of the material on record, saddled the liability upon the Corporation and awarded the total compensation of Rs. 62,81,050/- along with interest at 6% p.a. under the following heads:- Sl No. Compensation under the Head Amount 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 60,72,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- 3. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs. 19,950/- 6. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/- 7. Transportation of Dead Body Rs. 6,000/- TOTAL Rs. 62,81,050/- 4. While coming to the afore-stated conclusion, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 60,000/- per month after deduction of taxes, added 15% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applied the applicable multiplier of 11. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 5. Heard Sri. FS Dabali learned counsel for the Corporation and Sri K H Somashekara, learned counsel for claimants-respondents. Perused the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court records. 6. Learned counsel for the Corporation Sri. FS Dabali would submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, as the road on which the accident occurred was meant solely for the purpose of movement of buses and that pedestrian crossing was prohibited on the said road. It is further submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in calculating the income of the deceased at Rs. 60,000/- p.m. without deducting the income tax and it is submitted that, as the deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of accident, the split multiplier method ought to have been applied. The learned counsel of the Corporation also submits that the addition of 15% towards future prospects and the compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’ is without any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 basis. Thus, he would pray for allowing the appeal filed by the Corporation. 7. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the claimants Sri.K H Somashekara would submit that the Tribunal is right in attributing the negligence towards the driver of the Corporation bus. He would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Thus, he would pray that the appeal filed by the Corporation be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court Records, the following points would arise for our consideration: i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in attributing the negligence solely upon the driver of the Corporation Bus and the consequent liability upon the Corporation? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 ii. Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper? 9. Answer to the above points would be in the Affirmative and Partly in Negative, respectively, for the following reasons: The accident that occurred on 04.11.2022 at about 2.30 p.m. involving Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-18-F-0893 near Majestic, Bengaluru which resulted in the death of the deceased is not in dispute. However, the learned counsel for the Corporation would submit the Tribunal has erred in saddling the negligence solely upon the driver of the Corporation bus. 10. Subsequent to the accident, it is seen that an FIR has been registered against the driver of the Corporation bus, which has culminated in charge sheet being filed against the driver of the Corporation bus as well. Moreover, the Corporation have failed to examine the driver of the bus himself to substantiate their stand that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. 11. The Police Authorities have also recorded statements of the eye witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, wherein Sri. Vishwanath M L, Sri. Chandrakant and Sri. Pradeep BN, the eye witnesses have deposed that the driver of the Corporation bus drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased which led to head injuries being sustained by the deceased. Moreover, the conductor of the bus who was examined as RW2 has deposed in his cross examination that he did not witness the accident through his own eyes and has also deposed that he only heard about it from the other eye witnesses. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly attributed the negligence upon the driver of the Corporation bus. 12. With regard to the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Corporation would - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 submit that the Tribunal is not justified in calculating the income of the deceased at Rs. 60,000/- p.m. without deducting the income tax. A perusal at Ex. P9-Pay slip produced by the Claimants would indicate that the deceased was receiving Gross Salary of Rs. 64,647/- p.m. With regard to income to be assessed and the deductions to be made therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court in MANORMA SINHA V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2241 has held that income tax ought to be deducted while calculating the monthly income of the deceased at such rate which the annual income may be subjected to in the relevant year. The Hon’ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V. NALINI AND ORS., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2952 has held that allowances under various heads such as transport allowances, house rent allowance, provident fund loan, etc ought to added while calculating the basic salary of the deceased to arrive at dependency factor. Thus, the gross salary of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 64,647/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 p.m. If the applicable income tax and professional tax is deducted from the gross salary of the deceased, then the net annual income from salary after deduction of income tax and professional tax, with the allowances, would be Rs. 7,31,996/-. 13. The Tribunal on the other hand has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 60,000/- p.m. after deduction of taxes on an estimate basis. The net annual income of the deceased as per the estimate of the Tribunal would be Rs. 7,20,000/- which is admittedly lower than the net annual income assessed hereinabove by this Court. It is necessary to point out that the claimants have not challenged the Tribunal’s Judgment and Award, and hence, have accepted the same.The Hon’ble Apex Court in RANJANA PRAKASH V. DIVL. MANAGER, (2011) 14 SCC 639has held as under: “8.……The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” In the absence of an appeal being filed by the claimants, this Court does not find it just to interfere with the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal, that too, in an appeal filed by the Corporation. 14. With regard to the multiplier applicable, the learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that, since the deceased was aged 55 years as on the date of accident, the split multiplier method ought to have been adopted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent decision in PREETHA KRISHNAN AND ORS. V. THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.AND ORS. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2365 has deprecated the practice of applying the split multiplier method and held that the Split Multiplier Method is a concept that is foreign to the Act. Thus, as the deceased was aged 55 years as on the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 date of accident, the Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of ‘11’. 15. With regard to future prospects to be added, the deceased undisputedly had a permanent job and was aged 55 years old as on the date of his death. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly added 15% towards future prospects of the deceased. The deceased undisputedly has 2 dependents, i.e. claimant No. 1- Wife and claimant No. 2- daughter. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ as granted by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 60,72,000/- is not interfered with. 16. The compensation granted by the Tribunal towards Medical Expenses is just and fair and does not need any interference. Under the conventional heads, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- each for ‘Loss of Consortium’ and under the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 heads ‘Funeral expenses and Transportation charges’ and ‘Loss of Estate’ the claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- each, to be enhanced at 10% for every three years, in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PRANAY SETHI reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.The Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the heads ‘Funeral expenses’ and ‘Transportation of Dead Body’ independently. 17. With regard to compensation under the head ‘Loss of Love and Affection’, the Hon’ble Apex Court in UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V SATINDER KAUR reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 410, has held that treating ‘Love and Affection’ as a separate head is not justified when compensation under the head ‘loss of Consortium’ has already been granted. Thus, the Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. The claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 Sl. No. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 60,72,000/- 2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 88,000/- 3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- 4. Funeral Expenses and Transportation Charges Rs. 16,500/- 5. Medical Bills Rs. 19,950/- TOTAL Rs.62,12,950/- 18. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.62,12,950/- as against Rs. 62,81,050/- awarded by the Tribunal, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 19. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) MFA No. 3823/2025 filed by the Corporation is partly allowed. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants would be entitled to the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 compensation of Rs.62,12,950/- as against Rs. 62,81,050/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. d) The Corporation shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12400-DB MFA No. 3823 of 2025 f) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with Trial Court Records. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24