- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD DO 2, KHENY BUILDING NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS GANDHINAGAR, PB NO.9555 BANGALORE-560 009 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45 LEO COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560 025 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GUNASHEKAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SENIOR DIVL.CONTROLLER K S R T C MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE-575 001. 2. MR. MANJUNATH B. WADAWADAGI FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR, KAMATAGI POST HUNAGUND TALUK BAGALKOT DISTRICT PIN CODE 587 120. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 3. SURJIT SINGH DHOOT FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR, NO.4/1-19/2 KARAVALI, BHIWANDI BYPASS THANE, MAHARASHTRA 400 614 4. THE ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE COMPANY ZENITH HOUSE KESHAVRAO KHADE MARG MAHALAKSHMI MUMBAI PIN CODE-400 034. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R4, V/O DTD: 23.03.2015 NOTICE TOR R2 IS D/W V/O DTD: 09.11.2023 NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1291/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER MACT-IV, D.K, MANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,30,953/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 16.10.2014 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT-IV, D.K., Mangalore in MVC No.1291 of 2010. 2. The Senior Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mangalore, filed claim petition, claiming damages and loss sustained by the corporation to the bus bearing No.KA-01-F-7947, in an accident dated 03.08.2008 and they claimed compensation of Rs.4,44,776/-. The Tribunal, considered the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.2,30,953/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. It is was directed by the Tribunal that respondent No.2 therein shall deposit the compensation amount. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the Oriental insurance company Ltd. (respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) has filed this appeal and mainly contended that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-29-M-3318. The third and fourth - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 respondents are the owner and the insurer of the lorry bearing No.MH-04-CP-4936, which is also involved in the incident. The second respondent herein is the owner of the tempo trax and he remained absent and thus, he was placed ex-parte. Therefore, the claim petition against him was dismissed. The appellant-insurance company filed written statement before the Tribunal stating that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the KSRTC and the driver of the offending vehicle tempo trax has no valid and effective driving licence. As such, they are not liable to pay compensation. The claimant examined its Driver, Divisional Inspector and Manager of Mangalore workshops/depot as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked the documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. On behalf of respondents, Exhibit R1 copy of the insurance policy in respect of tempo trax was marked. 4. In the claim petition, it was stated that the front wind screen glass, front frame, grill and bumper, radiator and dashboard, front side corner and two sheets of the KSRTC was damaged and even head lights was broken and they spent - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 Rs.17,131/- for getting it repaired. It is stated that they could not ply the bus for one month and hence, there is loss of Rs.4,27,644/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.2,30,953/-, by deducting 50% of Rs.4,27,644/- and adding Rs.17,131/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 5. It is stated that the vehicle belonging to the appellant is a heavy transport vehicle and the offending tempo trax is only a light motor vehicle. As such, the driver of the appellant’s bus ought to have been more careful. In the cross examination, the driver of the bus stated that he noticed a tempo tax which was coming from opposite direction from a distance of half kilometer itself, and the driver of the tempo tax was overtaking the other tanker vehicle and coming from opposite direction. But still he had not taken the bus to the left hand side of the road. And thus, there is contributory negligence on his part. But the tribunal has not fixed the contributory negligence of the driver of the bus. It is further stated that the accident occurred in the middle of the road and he has also admitted the same, but contributory negligence - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 was not accepted. The repairs to the damaged vehicle should not have taken more than 2 days, but they claimed loss of income for non-plying of the bus for a period of 31 days, which is exorbitant and baseless and huge. In fact, by running each bus for a period of 2 to 3 years, corporation would get back entire costs. As such, the question of suffering loss at any point does not arise. The KSRTC has kept 6% of its total number of buses in reserve and it is plied in the route in which the bus involved in the accident could not be plied and thus, the Tribunal ought to have granted only Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 7. The main contention of the appellant-insurance company is that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the KSRC bus. But the charge sheet is filed against driver of the tempo trax and it is stated that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the tempo trax. The appellant has relied upon the cross examination of PW1- - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 driver, in which the driver of the bus admitted that he has seen the tempo trax from a distance of half kilometre and thus, he argued that the driver ought to have taken the bus to the left side of the road. The accident occurred in the middle of the road and thus, there is contributory negligence. 8. Perusal of the sketch clearly indicates that there was curve at the place of the accident and as such, the driver of the bus cannot predict that the tempo trax will dash his vehicle while overtaking the other vehicle. 9. Considering all the facts, the tribunal has rightly held that charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tempo trax vehicle under Exhibit P6, and the driver of the bus cannot anticipate that tempo trax would be overtaking the tanker vehicle and it will dash their bus from the opposite direction. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence. 10. The KSRTC examined two of their officials as P.Ws.2 and 3 and it is clearly stated that they have not used the vehicle from 03.08.2008 to 02.09.2008 and it is further stated - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010169462015 NC: 2026:KHC:37004 MFA No. 719 of 2015 that the average income of the bus is Rs.32,386/- per day, but the Tribunal has taken the average income of the bus per day as Rs.13,795/- and calculated it for 31 days. As they have 6% of reserved bus and the another bus was plied when the bus was in the garage for the repairs, granting of amount under the head loss of revenue is not proper and as such, grant of Rs.2,13,822/- by the Tribunal is set aside and the appellant insurance company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.17,131/- towards repair of the vehicle. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant insurance company is directed to pay an amount of Rs.17,131/- towards repair of the vehicle with interest at 6% per annum within one moth from the date of this order. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1