- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 1633 OF 2025 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, REP. BY SMT. SAVITHA, KSRTC TUMAKURU DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 101 REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. &APPELLANT (BY SRI G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOPALAIAH, S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SMT. MALAMMA W/O GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 3. LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH, S/O GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 ALL ARE R/AT MALLEKAVU VILLAGE AND POST, C.N.DURGA HOBLI, KORATAGER TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT SIRAGATE, TUMAKURU - 572101. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2024 PASSED IN MVC No.1287/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,63,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT. 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mallikarjun B. Ryakha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This appeal is filed by the corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 13.11.2024 passed in MVC No. 1287 of 2022 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 Tumakuru (for short 'the Tribunal'). The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation on account of the death of one Shivakumar G. (deceased) in a road traffic accident involving a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-F- 1019. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus. It was further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 36 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by carrying on shopkeeping and vending vegetables. 3.1 Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed a statement of objections, inter alia contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. In support of the claim, claimant No.1 examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2, and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and no documents were marked. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 3.2 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,500/- per month, took the age of the deceased at 37 years, applied multiplier 8159, added 40% towards future prospects, and deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses. Compensation was also awarded under conventional heads. In all, a total compensation of Rs.20,63,000/- with interest at 6% per annum was awarded. 4. Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant3corporation, contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is submitted that at about 7:35 p.m., the deceased suddenly entered the road from behind a bus on the opposite side and, being in an inebriated state, contributed to the occurrence of the accident. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 5. Per contra, Sri Mallikarjun B. Ryakha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submitted that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. It - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 is submitted that the accident took place near a bus stop at about 7:35 p.m. Though the accident occurred on 24.01.2022, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 07.02.2022. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs.16,442/- was incurred towards medical expenses, which has not been awarded by the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The date of accident, cause of death, assessment of notional income, age of the deceased, applicable multiplier, addition of 40% towards future prospects, and deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses are not in dispute. The only issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is with regard to contributory negligence. 7.1 Though it is contended on behalf of the insurer that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, the evidence on record indicates otherwise. RW1, who is the driver of the offending bus, has stated that the deceased, after alighting from bus on the other side of road, attempted to cross - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 the road hurriedly without noticing the movement of the offending bus and dashed against it. Ex.P5, the spot sketch discloses that the accident occurred at about 7:35 p.m. The deceased was crossing the road from west to east, whereas the offending bus was proceeding on the western side of the road. The sketch further indicates that the bus was on the correct side of the road and that the deceased entered the road without due caution, particularly during night hours. At the same time, it is also evident that the place of accident is near a bus stop on both sides of the road. The driver of the bus, therefore, was required to exercise a higher degree of caution, especially while approaching a bus stop where pedestrian movement is expected. 7.2 In view of the above, it cannot be held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of either party. The material on record clearly indicates that both the deceased and the driver of the bus contributed to the accident. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the deceased contributed to the extent of 20% towards the accident and the negligence of the driver of the bus is assessed at 80%. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 7.3 Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, except for the aspect of negligence, there is no dispute. However, it is brought to our notice that the deceased had incurred medical expenses of Rs.16,442/- during the period of treatment prior to his death. The said amount has not been awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant has not disputed the said expenditure. Considering that the deceased was hospitalized till his death, the claim towards medical expenses is just and reasonable and deserves to be awarded. 7.4 The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to only two of the claimants. The claimants are father, mother and brother of the deceased. Hence, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/-each under the head of loss of consortium. The claimants are also entitled to enhancement of compensation at the rate of 10% every three years under the conventional heads as per the law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors. dated 31.10.2017 reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the compensation is recomputed and tabulated as under: 19,53,000 X 80% = Rs.15,62,400/- 10% increment from the date of the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme court in Pranay Sethi (supra) from 31.10.2017 till the date of order of the Tribunal would equate to an increment of 20%. Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation by the Tribunal (Rs.) Compensation by this Court (Rs.) 1. Loss of Dependency 19,53,000/- 15,62,400/- 2. Loss of Estate 15,000/- 18,000/- [15,000 + 3000(20%)] 3. Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 18,000/- [15,000 + 3000(20%)] 4. Loss of Consortium 80,000/- (40,000 X 2) 1,44,000/- [1,20,000 + 4,000(20%)] 5 Medical expenses - 16442/- Total 20,63,000/- 17,58,842/- Reduced Compensation 3,04,158/- 9. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20655-DB MFA No. 1633 of 2025 (ii) The judgment and award dated 13.11.2024 passed in MVC No.1287/2022 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Tumakuru, is modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.17,58,842/- as against Rs.20,63,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The apportionment, interest and deposit as ordered by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. (v) The Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit, if any, to the Tribunal forthwith. (vi) Draw modified decree accordingly. (vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8