Karnataka High Court
Durgappa Govindappa Madar vs The Managing Director Nwkrtc on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13638
MFA No. 100946 of 2015
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100129 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100946 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100129 OF 2015
IN MFA NO. 100946/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
(OWNER OF KSRTC BUS
GIRIJA A. NO.KA-25/F-2234)
BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
(OWNER OF KSRTC BUS
NO.KA-25/F-2234).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13638
MFA No. 100946 of 2015
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100129 of 2015
HC-KAR
AND:
DURGAPPA GOVINDAPP MADAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HARALAKATTI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
SUMMONING THE LOWER COURT RECORDS WITH AWARD AND
JUDGMENT PASSED IN MVC NO.122/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI, AT SAUNDATTI. EXAMINE
THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2014 IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA CROB NO. 100129/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DURGAPPA GOVINDAPPA MADAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARALAKATTI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13638
MFA No. 100946 of 2015
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100129 of 2015
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI,
DISTRICT DHARWAD,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC
INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DHARWAD DIVISION DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CROSS
APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY
ENHANCING COMPENSATION IN MVC NO.122/2014 DATED 22-
12-2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI
UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS MFA AND MFA CROB., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13638
MFA No. 100946 of 2015
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100129 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Sri S.C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the appellants in MFA No.100946/2015, who is also appearing for the respondents in connected MFA Crob.No.100129/2015, as well as Ms. Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for the respondent in MFA No.100946/2015, who is representing the appellant/ cross-objector in MFA Crob.No.100129/2015.
2. These two appeals are the outcome of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Saundatti, in MVC No.122/2014 dated 22.12.2014.
3. While the respondents to the said Motor Vehicle's case filed an appeal projecting that the compensation granted is exorbitant, the claimant filed cross- objection appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13638 MFA No. 100946 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR
4. Sri S. C. Bhuti, learned counsel representing the Road Transport Corporation, contends that the she-buffalo of the claimant died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2012. The claimant filed a petition seeking compensation of ₹2,10,000. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹75,000 in total as compensation. Learned counsel submits that, as per the post-mortem report, the value of the deceased she-buffalo is ₹34,000 only. But the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹50,000 towards the cost of the said buffalo. Learned counsel states that, though there is no evidence with regard to the amount that was incurred by the claimant for disposal of the corpse, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹10,000 for disposal. Likewise, though no proof is produced with regard to loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹15,000 towards loss of earnings, which is highly improper.
5. On the other hand, the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the claimant is that, the she- -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13638 MFA No. 100946 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR buffalo was giving more than a litre of milk every day and the claimant was eking out his livelihood by selling that milk. The deceased she-buffalo was aged only five and a half years by the date of it's death, and had the she-buffalo been alive, the claimant would have earned a substantial amount by vending milk, and thus, the compensation granted is on lower side.
6. As rightly projected, even if on average the milk that was being produced by the she-buffalo is taken as one litre per day, and on average if it is taken that the said one litre of milk was sold at the rate of ₹30, the claimant would be earning ₹900/- per month and ₹10,800/- per annum.
7. That apart, the she-buffalo which died in the road traffic accident, that occurred while it was aged 5 ½ years, would have given birth to at least 2 or 3 calves had the same remained alive. Therefore, the claimant -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13638 MFA No. 100946 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100129 of 2015 HC-KAR would have got the benefit of rearing those calves and increasing the productivity and thereby the earnings.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is granted in toto, that is ₹75,000, is not exorbitant. Also, in the light of the absence of any substantive proof with regard to the actual earnings, the expenditure that was incurred by the claimant for maintaining the she-buffalo, etc., this Court is of the view that the compensation granted cannot be further enhanced.
9. Thus, ultimately, this Court holds that both the appeals lack merits.
10. Resultantly, both the appeals stand dismissed.
11. Amount, if any, in deposit, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab/CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28