Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Nekrtc vs Sujatha And Ors on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
MFA No. 200648 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200648/2023(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC RAICHUR DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAICHUR.
(REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE, NEKRTC,
NOW KKRTC,
KALABURAGI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SUJATHA W/O LATE MOSHAPPA @ MOSHA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SHALINI KUMAR D/O LATE MOSHAPPA @ MOSHA,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
3. SAHANA D/O LATE MOSHAPPA @ MOSHA,
AGE: 08 YEARS,
RESP. NO. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS, UNDER THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
MFA No. 200648 of 2023
GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
RESP.NO.1 HEREIN/SUJATHA
4. ANJAMMA W/O MUTTAYYA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O H.NO.5/207, NEAR AMBEDKAR BHAVAN,
KALLUR VILLAGE,
NOW RESIDING AT MADDIPET,
RAICHUR-584 101.
5. SHIVAKUMAR S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF KSRTC
BUS BEARING NO.KA-36/F-1245,
R/O SIRGUPPA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BELLARY-583 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4;
R5-V/O. DTD. 24.05.2023, NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2022 IN
MVC NO.99/2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, RAICHUR, TO THE
EXTENT OF RS.13,75,000/-.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
MFA No. 200648 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant
- NEKRTC (KKRTC), and learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 - petitioners/claimants.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC No.99/2021 dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge and M.A.C.T., Raichur, (for short
'Tribunal'), the KKRTC is before this Court in appeal.
3. The factual aspect of this case is as below:
a) On 13.12.2019 when the deceased Moshappa @
Mosha proceeding on his motorcycle towards Raichur, the
Bus owned by the appellant, bearing No.KA-36/F-1245 came
in high speed and negligent manner from the opposite
direction and dashed to the deceased, resulting in his death.
The petitioners, who are the dependents of the deceased-
Moshappa have filed claim petition before the Tribunal
seeking compensation from the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
b) Respondent No.2, who is appellant herein,
appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the claim petition
contending that there was negligence on the part of the
deceased himself and therefore, KKRTC is not liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioners. Inter alia it also
disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased
and sought for dismissal of the petition.
c) Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the first
petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were
marked in the evidence. The driver of the appellant-KKRTC
was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked. After
hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that the accident
was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the
KKRTC-bus and the petitioners are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.27,50,000 under following heads:
Sl. Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Mental shock and agony Rs.40,000/-
2 Transportation & funeral Rs.50,000/-
expenses
3 Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs.40,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
5 Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/-
6 Loss of dependency Rs.25,20,000/-
Total Rs.27,50,000/-
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the KKRTC
is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
KKRTC submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the higher side and therefore, there is
necessity for reassessment of the compensation. It is also
submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the
deceased was not having any valid driving license at the time
of the accident and therefore, the contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased was not properly appreciated by the
Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondents/petitioners contends that the deceased was
moving on the right side of the road and the bus came from
the wrong side and dashed to the deceased, resulting in his
death. This aspect has been properly considered by the
Tribunal and the charge-sheet having been filed against the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
bus-driver alone, no fault can be found with the judgment of
the Tribunal.
7. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, she defends
that the Tribunal has considered the compensation in a
proper way and no interference is needed. Some the of the
records would show that the Police had registered the case
against the bus-driver and then filed the charge-sheet
against bus-driver only, this is because the accident had
occurred on the wrong lane of the bus-driver. No fault could
have been attributed to the deceased on account of his
coming on the left lane of the road and therefore, the
concerned Police filed charge-sheet against the bus-driver
only. This aspect has been dealt by the Tribunal in detail in
Para No.10 of the impugned judgment.
8. This Court agrees with the views taken by the
Tribunal in that regard.
9. So far as the contention that the deceased was
not having Driving License and therefore, negligence should
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
have been attributed to him is concerned, it is necessary to
observe that there being no overt-act on the part of the
deceased in contributing negligence, non-possessing of the
Driving License alone cannot be a ground to say that there
was contributory negligence. It is the skill of driving which is
of pivotal importance in the case of a tortuous liability. If
the person had the skill, the legal infirmity cannot be
equated to negligence. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for he
not possessing a valid Driving License to drive a motorcycle
is not sustainable in law.
10. Coming to the quantum of the compensation, it is
necessary to observe that the Tribunal has not adhered to
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others1. Though the judgment was rendered in the year
2022, the compensation awarded under the conventional
heads has not been adhered to. Therefore, the petitioners
(2017)16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
are entitled for compensation of Rs.52,000/- under the head
of loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head
funeral expenses and Rs.19,500/- under the head loss of
estate, in all Rs.91,000/- under conventional heads as
against Rs.2,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. This
calculation is made based on the dictum in the case of
'Pranay Sethi' that there shall be escalation of 10% for
every three years. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a
sum of Rs.25,20,000/- + Rs.91,000 = Rs.26,11,000/-, to
this extent the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment
needs to be modified.
11. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The petitioners are entitled for a
compensation of Rs.26,11,000/- instead of
Rs.27,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii) The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
regarding apportionment, deposit and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1002
release of the compensation, including the
rate of interest, remain unaltered.
iv) The amount in deposit before this Court is
ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
