Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller North West ... vs Smt Sujata W/O Durgesh Waddar on 7 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641
MFA No. 101046 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101046 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M K SOUDAGAR, ADV)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
1. SMT. SUJATA
W/O DURGESH WADDAR
Digitally signed by
AGE. 21 YEARS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Date: 2026.03.12 R/O. KARADIGUDDA VILLAGE,
11:08:41 +0530
RAL. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
2. MISS. ASHWINI
D/O. TIMMANNA WADDAR
AGE. 17 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT
R/O. KARADIGUDDA VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641
MFA No. 101046 of 2021
HC-KAR
RAL. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
(SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
GUARDIAN SISTER RESPONDENT NO.1)
3. SMT. DURGAVVA
W/O. SHATTEPPA WADDAR
AGE. 66 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KARADIGUDDA VILLAGE,
RAL. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS K. NADAMANI, ADV FOR R1 & R3;
R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE MVC NO.2450/2018
ON THE FILE THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.08.2020 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEF'S AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641
MFA No. 101046 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the NWKRTC1 challenging the judgment and award dated 03.08.2020 passed in MVC No. 2450 of 2018 by the Court of V Additional District Judge and Member of Additional MACT, Belagavi ('Tribunal' for short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
2.1. On 12.12.2017, the deceased Smt. Manjula and Durgappa were travelling in a NWKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-28/F-1542 Kulageri to Ramadurg. When the said bus was near Karadigudda cross, which was at a distance of 100 metres, the deceased Durgappa had come near the rear side door and stood there with an intention to get down from the bus at Karadigudda cross. When the said Durgappa was standing at the foot board, the bus driver who was driving the bus in high speed in a rash and 1 North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641 MFA No. 101046 of 2021 HC-KAR negligent manner, abruptly applied the brake, due to which Durgappa fell down on the road from the running bus. It is contended that, Manjula, who was stated to be occupying the middle seat of the bus, rushed to the rescue of Durgappa, and in doing so, she was thrown out of the bus through the rear side door and suffered severe head and other bodily injuries. Durgappa died during the treatment and Manjula succumbed to the injuries later on 21.12.2017.
The deceased, Manjula was aged about 34 years and at the time of accident, she was working as a Coolie, and earning ₹15,000/- per month. She was contributing her entire income to the family. The petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased Manjula, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Manjula in the said accident.
2.2. NWKRTC filed a statement of objections before the Tribunal denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that, the deceased Manjula has -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641 MFA No. 101046 of 2021 HC-KAR contributed for the cause of the accident and there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Manjula. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.
2.3. The Tribunal, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
2.4. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined petitioner No.1 was examined petitioner No.1 as PW1, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, the respondent examined the bus driver as RW1, and did not mark any documents.
2.5. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs and awarded a compensation of ₹14,84,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. The NWKRTC was directed to deposit the compensation amount with the accrued interest.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641 MFA No. 101046 of 2021 HC-KAR
3. The NWKRTC, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for NWKRTC and learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for NWKRTC submits that, the deceased Manjula, in order to save the deceased Durgappa, fell down from the bus and there is no negligence on part of the driver of the bus. He submits that, the deceased Manjula died because of her own negligence. He further submits that, the Tribunal could have fixed the liability and contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Manjula. The Tribunal committed an error in fastening the entire liability on NWKRTC. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the deceased Durgappa was standing on the foot board of the bus, the driver of the bus had abruptly applied the brake, the deceased Durgappa fell down, the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641 MFA No. 101046 of 2021 HC-KAR deceased Manjula, though she was occupying the middle seat of the bus, came to the rescue of the deceased Durgappa, wherein she fell down from the bus from the rear side door and sustained grievous injuries and later on, succumbed to the injuries. He submits that the accident is of 2017. and the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, however, the Tribunal has taken the income at ₹8,000/-, which is on the lower side. He submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the liability.
9. It is undisputed fact that, the deceased Durgappa and the deceased Manjula were travelling in a NWKRTC bus -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641 MFA No. 101046 of 2021 HC-KAR bearing Reg.No.KA-28/F-1542 on 12.12.2017. When the bus was near Karadigudda cross which was at a distance of 100 metres, the deceased Durgappa came near the rear side door and stood there with an intention to get down from the bus at Karadigudda cross. The bus driver had abruptly applied the brake, due to which the deceased Durgappa fell down on the road from the running bus. The deceased Manjula, who was occupying the middle seat of the bus, rushed to rescue the deceased Durgappa and while doing so, she was thrown out from the rear side door and sustained severe head and bodily injuries. Later on, she succumbed to the injuries on 21.12.2017. Reg. Liability:
10. To show that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the petitioners have produced charge sheet marked as Ex.P6.
Learned counsel for the NWKRTC submits that, the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased Manjula. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641 MFA No. 101046 of 2021 HC-KAR To prove the said fact, the NWKRTC has examined its Driver as RW1. The Driver, who was driving the bus will not be in a position to see whether there was a negligence on the part of the deceased Manjula. The proper person would have been the Conductor. The NWKRTC has withheld the material witness. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Driver, while driving the bus, will be always seeing on the front side and he cannot see on the rear side. Hence, the evidence of RW1 cannot be considered to prove that there was negligence on the part of the deceased Manjula in causing the accident. The said aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph No.10 of the impugned judgment, where it was rightly held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment.
11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3641
MFA No. 101046 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed;
ii. The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to
the Tribunal;
iii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13