Karnataka High Court
The Division Controller vs S Ashwini And Ors on 26 November, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
MFA No. 201989 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201989 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISION CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC, YADAGIR DIVISION YADAGIRI
(NOW REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE NEKRTC
NOW KKRTC, KALABURAGI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
1. S ASHWINI
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH W/O S. UMESH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SANVI
D/O S. UMESH,
AGE: 05 YEARS,
MINOR THROUGH HER NEXT
FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER
S. ASHWINI W/O S. UMESH,
3. BHEEMANNA
S/O NARASAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
MFA No. 201989 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE
ALL R/O: MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.3,
NEAR KANAVI ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
MASKI, TQ: MANVI,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
3a. MAHADEVI
W/O BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.3,
NEAR KANVI ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
MASKI, TQ: MANVI,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. VISHWANATH
S/O BASAVANTRAYA CHENNAPPAGOL,
BADGE NO.882,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF KA-33/F-0378 OF
SHAHAPUR DEPORT DIST: YADAGIRI,
R/O: MARADAGI, POST: SATHKHED,
TQ: JEWARGI, DIST:KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND
R3(A);
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.12.2022 IN MVC
NO.11/2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
AT LINGASUGUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
MFA No. 201989 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Lingasugur in MVC 11/2021.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.12.2020, when the deceased Umesh was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-36-EV-3868 near Kasturappa of Panduranga Camp on Sindhanur-Maski Road, at that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-33-F-0378 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.66,99,675/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following contentions:
Re: Negligence The accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The deceased rode the motorcycle in a high speed and dashed to the bus; fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. The driver of the bus has been examined as RW-2 and he has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself; he was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and came to the extreme right side and dashed to the bus. The Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident. Re: Quantum of compensation:
Firstly, the deceased was a Govt. employee and after his death, the claimants are getting family pension. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR compensation. Moreover, the Tribunal without deducting the pension amount from the gross salary, has awarded excessive compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency'.
Secondly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
With the above contentions, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following counter-contentions:
Re: Negligence The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The driver of the bus was driving the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Immediately after the accident, -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR complaint has been lodged against the driver of the bus and after investigation, the police have registered FIR and filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal considering the materials available on record has rightly held that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident.
Re: Quantum of compensation The Tribunal considering the age and avocation of the deceased has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation.
With the above contentions, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
RE: NEGLIGENCE
9. The case of the claimants is that on 08.12.2020 at about 9 a.m., when the deceased Umesh was riding the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-36-EV-3868 and proceeding near Kasturappa of Panduranga Camp on Sindhanur-Maski Road, at that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-33-F-0378 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
To prove the case, the claimants have examined claimant No.3 as PW-1 and one eye-witness as PW-2, and 22 documents were produced and marked as Ex.P-1 to 22. In order to disprove the case, the respondents have examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and produced and marked 4 documents as Ex.R-1 to 4.
PW-1 in his evidence has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. PW-2 has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The driver of the bus in order to overtake the vehicles ahead, came to the extreme -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR right side of the road and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased, which was coming on the opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries.
Immediately after the accident, complaint has been lodged against the driver of the bus and after investigation, the police have registered FIR and filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus.
Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM -v- ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:
"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
As per spot panchanama Ex.P-22, it is very clear that the accident occurred on the road, which proceeds from
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR Sindhanur to Maski i.e., from South to North. The deceased was proceeding on motorcycle from Sindhanur to Maski and the driver of the bus was proceeding from Maski to Sindhanur. It is very clear from the sketch, that the driver of the bus, who was proceeding from Maski to Sindhanur came to his extreme right side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased, which was proceeding from Sindhanur to Maski.
On going through the evidence of the parties and materials available on record such as FIR, compliant, sketch, panchanama, charge sheet, IMV report, we are of the considered opinion that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in causing the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in respect of negligence is concerned, the same is confirmed.
RE: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
10. In respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR case of VIMAL KANWAR AND OTHERS -V- KISHORE DAN AND OTHERS [(2013) 7 SCC 476], while determining the compensation towards 'loss of dependency', only professional tax and income tax have to be deducted from the gross salary of an employee.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and considering other factors such as age and number of dependents, has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is confirmed.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Corporation is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is dismissed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB MFA No. 201989 of 2023 HC-KAR
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is confirmed.
c) The Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
d) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44