Karnataka High Court
Smt. Reena vs The Managing Director on 10 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10008/2013 (MV-I)
C/w
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1094/2012 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2473/2012 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1222/2013 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2750/2014 (MV-I)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2751/2014 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5074/2014 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5075/2014 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5076/2014 (MV-I)
MFA NO.10008/2013:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Digitally CENTRAL OFFICE, K H DOUBLE ROAD
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...APPELLANT
Location:
High Court of (BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
1. SMT.REENA
W/O LATE NANDAN SHET
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.27/1, 1ST CROSS
A N GUPTA LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 030
R/AT NO.129, TULASI LAYOUT
OPPOSITE TO LAKESHARE HOMES
KASAVANAHALLI, NEAR KAIKUNARALLI
BANGALORE-560 030
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
NO.71, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 027 ...RESPONDENTS
(SMT.REENA (PARTY-IN-PERSON) FOR R1;
BY SRI M.H.HIDAYATHULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7828/2005 ON
THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
MFA NO.1094/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI V VEERANNA
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
a) SRI UMASHANKAR
S/O LATE V VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
b) NIRMALA @ GAYATHRI
D/O LATE V.VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
c) V. HARISHKUMAR
S/O LATE V. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
A1(a) TO A1(c) ARE
R/AT NO.1189, M.C. LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 040
2. ASHADEVI @ ASHA
D/O LATE V. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO.1184, 4TH MAIN
M.C.LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027
2. G.A. CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION
FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LTD.
NO.3, H.V.S COURT
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE
3. THE DEPUTY MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE
MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
NO.71, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI M.H.HIDAYATHULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 16.04.2013)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 11.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.7916/2005 ON THE FILE OF
XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 2473/2012:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI V VEERANNA
S/O SRI VEERABHADRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SRI UMASHANKAR
S/O LATE V VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
2. NIRMALA @ GAYATHRI
D/O LATE V.VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. V. HARISHKUMAR
S/O LATE V. VEERANNA
MAJOR
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT NO.1189
M.C. LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040
4. ASHADEVI @ ASHA
D/O LATE V. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.1184, 4TH MAIN
M.C.LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040
5. G.A.CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION
FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.
NO.3, H.V.S. COURT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE, BY ITS MANAGER
6. THE DEPUTY MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 027
7. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
NO.71, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI M.H.HIDAYATHULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 22.08.2014)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 11.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.7916/2005 ON THE
FILE OF XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER,
MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,99,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO.1222/2013:
BETWEEN:
M/S ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
NO.71, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
BANGALORE - 560 052
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.GURDEEP BAINS ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.H.HIDAYATHULLA , ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI V VEERANNA
S/O SRI VEERABHADRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SRI UMASHANKAR
S/O LATE V VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
2. SMT.NIRMALA @ GAYATHRI
D/O LATE V.VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
3. SRI V. HARISHKUMAR
S/O LATE V. VEERANNA
MAJOR,R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT NO.1189
M.C. LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040
4. SMT.ASHADEVI @ ASHA
D/O LATE V.VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.1184, 4TH MAIN
M.C.LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040
5. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, K H DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE
6. G A CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION
FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.
NO.3, H V S COURT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
7. THE DEPUTY MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 22.08.2014)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 11.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.7916/2005 ON THE FILE OF
THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,99,000/-WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
MFA NO.2750/2014 & MFA NO.2751/2014:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.DOUBLE ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...APPELLANT
(COMMON)
(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT REENA
W/O LATE NANDAN SHET
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.27/1, 1ST CROSS
A.N.GUPTA LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA
BANGALORE-560 030
R/AT NO.129, TULASI LAYOUT
OPPOSITE TO LAKESHARE HOMES
KASAVANAHALLI, NEAR KAIKUNARALLI
BANGALORE-560 030
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
NO.71, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560 052
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027 ...RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(SMT.REENA (PARTY-IN-PERSON) R1;
BY SRI M.H.HIDAYATHULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
M.F.A.NO.2750/2014 & M.F.A.NO.2751/2014 ARE FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.583/2006 AND
MVC NO.7829/2005 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER-MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,67,000/- AND RS.1,50,000/- RESPECTIVELY
WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALISATION.
MFA NO.5074/2014, MFA NO.5075/2014 & MFA NO.5076/2014:
BETWEEN:
SMT. REENA
W/O LATE NANDAN SHET
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.27/1, 1ST CROSS
A.N. GUPTA LAYOUT, LAKKASANDRA
BANGALORE-560 030
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.306, E-HOMES APARTMENT
BEHIND BATA SHOW ROOM
SARJAPUR ROAD, KAIKUDRAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 035 ...APPELLANT
(COMMON)
(SMT. REENA (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C, K.H. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 027
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ACCENTURE SERVICE PVT. LTD.,
NO.71, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 027 ...RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 D/W V/O DATED 13.07.2015 (MFA NO.5075/2014);
R2 SERVED (MFA No.5076/2014)
SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (MFA NO.5074/2014)
M.F.A.No.5074/2014, M.F.A.No.5075/2014 & M.F.A.No.5076/2014
ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7828/2005,
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
MFA No.10008/2013
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
M.V.C.NO.7829/2005 AND M.V.C.NO.583/2006 ON THE FILE OF VI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,50,000/-,
RS.1,50,000/- AND RS.1,67,000/- RESPECTIVELY WITH INTEREST @
8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
These appeals arise out of common judgment and award
dated 01.08.2013 in M.V.C.No.583/2006, M.V.C.No.7829/2005
and M.V.C.No.7828/2005 passed by VI Additional Small Causes
Judge and MACT, Bangalore and judgment and award dated
11.07.2011 in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 passed by XII Additional
Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore.
2. One Reena is claimant in M.V.C.No.7828/2005,
M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and M.V.C.No.583/2006. Claimants in
M.V.C.No.7916/2005 are legal representatives of deceased
Mahesh.
3. On 14.10.2005 at about 1.20 a.m. when Reena, her
husband Nandan Shet, mother-in-law Geetha Shet and Mahesh
were traveling in Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-
MB-2073 near Siddeshwara Petrol Bunk, NH-48 within the
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
limits of Kunigal Police Station, there was collision between the
said car and KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-F-7846.
At the time of the accident, Nandan Shet was driving Santro
Car. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, Reena's
husband Nandan Shet, mother-in-law Geetha Shet and Mahesh
died at the spot. Reena sustained injuries. She took treatment
initially in General Hospital, Kunigal and thereafter in
NIMHANS, Bangalore. At the time of the accident, Managing
Director, Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. was the registered owner
and New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd. was insurer
of Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-MB-2073.
4. Reena filed M.V.C.No.7828/2005, M.V.C.
No.7829/2005 claiming compensation for the death of her
husband and mother-in-law and M.V.C.No.583/2006 for
personal injuries sustained by her. Legal representatives of
deceased Mahesh filed M.V.C.No.7916/2005. It is material to
note that though in M.V.C.No.7828/2005, M.V.C.No.7829/2005
and M.V.C.No.583/2006 Reena was common claimant and
M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and M.V.C.No.583/2006 were
consolidated for recording common evidence, selectively she
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
did not choose to get M.V.C.No.7828/2005 also consolidated
with the other two matters.
5. In all the petitions, the claimants contended that
the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part
of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-F-7846.
Claimant Reena contended that her husband and mother-in-law
were earning sumptuously and due to their death, she has
suffered loss of dependency. In M.V.C.No.583/2006, she
contended that due to the accidental injuries and consequent
permanent physical disability, she has lost her future earnings
and she has spent huge amount on medical treatment. Thus
she claimed compensation from the respondents.
6. In M.V.C.No.7916/2005, legal representatives of
deceased Mahesh contended that they were all depending on
his income and due to his death, they have lost their
breadwinner and KSRTC is liable to pay the compensation.
7. In all the cases, KSRTC contested the petitions
denying actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the
bus. KSRTC contended that accident occurred solely due to
negligence on the part of Nandan Shet/driver of Santro Car
himself. Further, the age, occupation, income of the deceased,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
dependency of the claimants, the injuries and permanent
physical disability suffered by Reena were denied. Thus it
sought dismissal of the claim petitions.
8. In all the cases, owner of Santro Car i.e. Managing
Director, Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. remained exparte and did
not contest the claim petitions.
9. In M.V.C.No.7828/2005, M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and
M.V.C.No.583/2006, the Tribunal on hearing the parties held
that the accident occurred solely due to actionable negligence
on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing Registration
No.KA-01-F-7846. Whereas, in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 the
Tribunal held that in the occurrence of the accident, both
Nandan Shet/ driver of the car and driver of KSRTC Bus
contributed equal negligence. Therefore the Tribunal fastened
the liability in the said cases to both drivers of KSRTC and
Santro Car and directed them, KSRTC and Insurer of the car to
pay compensation accordingly to the claimants.
10. To make it precise, particulars of the claimants,
case numbers, amount of compensation claimed by the
claimants, compensation awarded by the Tribunals and the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
appeals arising out of those awards are set out in the table
below:
Claimant Amount of Awarded by
Sl. compensation the Tribunal Appeals
MVC No. MFA Nos.
No. Claimed (in Rs.) preferred by
(in Rs.)
VI Addl. Judge, Reena 1,50,00,000/- 1,50,000/- KSRTC
MACT, Court of
Small Causes
VI Addl. Judge, Reena 1,50,00,000/- 1,50,000/- Reena
MACT, Court of
Small Causes
VI Addl. Judge, Reena 30,00,000/- 1,50,000/- KSRTC
MACT, Court of
Small Causes
VI Addl. Judge, Reena 30,00,000/- 1,50,000/- Reena
MACT, Court of
Small Causes
VI Addl. Judge, Reena 10,00,000/- 1,67,000/- 2750/2014 KSRTC
MACT, Court of
Small Causes
VI Addl. Judge, Reena 10,00,000/- 1,67,000/- Reena
MACT, Court of
Small Causes
7916/2005 Veeranna LRs. of Veeranna LRs.
XII Addl. Small Mahesh 1,50,00,000/- 2,99,000/- of Mahesh
Causes Judge,
MACT
7916/2005 Veeranna LRs. of
XII Addl. Small Mahesh 1,50,00,000/- 2,99,000/- KSRTC
Causes Judge
MACT
7916/2005 Veeranna Accenture
XII Addl. Small LRs. of Mahesh 1,50,00,000/- 2,99,000/- Services Pvt.
Causes Judge, Ltd
MACT
11. Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for KSRTC
referring to sketch of scene of occurrence and other records
submits that the accident occurred due to negligence on the
part of the driver of Santro Car/Nandan Shet himself. The
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
Tribunal's findings imputing negligence to the driver of KSRTC
bus is unsustainable. He further submits that compensation
awarded is also unsustainable. More particularly, the claimant
Reena was not dependent either on her husband or her
mother-in-law. He also challenges the quantum of
compensation awarded to her for the injuries sustained in the
accident. In case of legal representatives of the deceased
Mahesh also, he submits that compensation awarded is on the
higher side and the finding regarding negligence is
unsustainable.
12. Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned Counsel for New India
Assurance Insurance Company Ltd./Insurer of the Santro Car
and Sri M.H.Hidayathulla, learned Counsel for owner of the car
i.e. Accenture Services Private Limited submit that on
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the
bus and the evidence of Reena the injured eyewitness and
other eyewitnesses clearly shows that the driver of the bus was
solely negligent. Therefore the finding in M.V.C.No.7916/2005
that the driver of Santro Car has contributed to the negligence
in occurrence of the accident is unsustainable. They seek to set
aside the finding in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 on negligence. They
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
justify the awards in M.V.C.No.7828/2005,
M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and M.V.C.No.583/2006 regarding
negligence and their exoneration. They adopt the line of
arguments of Sri D.Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for KSRTC
regarding dependency of claimant Reena and quantum of
compensation in all claim petitions.
13. Smt.Reena the claimant in M.V.C.No.7828/2005,
M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and M.V.C.No.583/2006 has filed written
arguments wherein she claims that the accident occurred solely
due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC
Bus and the same is evident from the material on record. She
has submitted that she was not examined in
M.V.C.No.7916/2005, the records therein did not contain the
evidence of eyewitness to the incident and that has led the said
Tribunal rendering the finding attributing negligence to her
husband Nandan Seth also. She has contended that in the
cases filed by her, the Tribunal has rightly returned the finding
attributing entire negligence to KSRTC driver and the same
needs to be maintained. So far as quantum of compensation,
she has contended that pan cards, identity cards of her
husband and mother-in-law were lost due to tragic accident
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
and the events following the same. The computer of her
husband wherein the data was stored was not returned by the
repairer. Therefore she could not produce proof of income of
her husband and mother-in-law. She also contended that she
could not produce her medical bills due to tragic accident, post
accident trauma suffered by her and Covid pandemic, therefore
her evidence regarding the income of her husband and mother-
in-law should have been believed. So far as her earning
capacity, she contended that due to the accident, she has lost
her mental strength to perform her duty and professional work.
Therefore she has stopped working as she could not keep pace
with the changes in the technology and her colleagues. Hence,
she could not get promotion due to her disability in performing
the work, that led to loss of income.
14. Claimant Reena filed I.A.No.1/2024 to produce the
documents relating to the income of her husband. She
contended that the documents produced by her show that her
husband's annual income is Rs.32,74,236/- and she needs to
be awarded compensation on that basis for the death of her
husband. The finding of the Tribunal that she is not depending
on her husband or mother-in-law's income is erroneous. She
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
submits that proper multiplier be applied in case of death of her
husband and mother-in-law. The just and appropriate
compensation has to be awarded for the injuries suffered by
her also on all heads with 18% interest. Said application is
opposed by other side.
15. In support of her submission, she relied on the
following judgments:
(i) Sidram V. The Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.1
(ii) Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza v. Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service2
(iii) Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh3
(iv) K.R Madhusudhan v. The Administrative Officer &
Anr.4
(v) N.Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam Ms General
Insurance Company Ltd.5
(vi) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors6
(vii) Indrawati & Anr. v. Ranbir Singh & Ors.7
(viii) Sri.Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional
Manger, Oritl Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr.8
16. Sri S.Nagaiah, learned Counsel for the claimants in
M.V.C.No.7916/2005 submits that the compensation awarded
to the claimants in that case is inadequate and not fair one.
2022 INSC 1204
Civil Appeal No.8251/2013 DD.03/10/2013
Civil Appeal No.3860/2013 DD 12/04/2013
Civil Appeal Nos.1923-1924/2011 D.D.18/02/2011
Civil Appeal No.6451/2021 D.D. 25/10/2021
Civil Appeal No.7989/2002 D.D.03/12/2002
MAC.App.No.623/2019 D.D.08.01.2021
Civil Appeal No.9676/2011 D.D.08.11.2011
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
17. On hearing the parties and on examining the
materials on record, the questions that arise for determination
of the Court are:
(i) Whether the claimants have proved that on
14.10.2005 at 1.20 a.m. near Sapthagiri Hospital
within limits of Kunigal Town police, accident
between Santro Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-
MB-2073 and KSRTC bus bearing Registration
No.KA-01-F-7846 occurred solely due to actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus?
(ii) Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.7828/2005 is just?
(iii) Whether I.A.No.1/2024 filed in
M.F.A.No.5074/2014 to adduce additional evidence
deserves to be allowed?
(iv) Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.7829/2005 is just?
(v) Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.583/2006 is just?
(vi) Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.7916/2005 is just?
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
Reg. Negligence:
18. The claimants in all the cases contended that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of KSRTC bus. The claimants in M.V.C.No.7916/2005
were not eyewitnesses. It is true that Reena was injured
witness and she deposed that the accident was solely due to
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It is
also true that Kunigal police registered first information report
in Crime No.275/2005 against the driver of the bus on the
complaint of one K.B.Shadakshari, police constable of Kunigal
Police Station. On investigation, charge sheet was filed against
the driver of bus.
19. To rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants, in
all the cases driver of bus was examined as RW.1. He deposed
that when he was proceeding on the left side of road, driver of
Santro Car bearing No.KA-04-MB-2073 came in high speed,
losing control he came on his extreme right side on the road.
RW.1 further deposed that he tried to take his bus on his
extreme left side to avert the accident, but still the driver of the
car came on its extreme right and hit the bus. He further
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
deposed that he went to the police station to file the complaint,
but the police did not register the case.
20. To prove the negligence of the driver of the bus
alone, the claimants relied on the charge sheet records and the
evidence of Reena who was the inmate of the car. It is no
doubt true that charge sheet has presumptive value. However,
said presumption is not conclusive. If presumption is rebutted,
the claimants have burden to prove sole negligence on the part
of the driver of the bus. It is now settled position of law that
even driver pleading guilty is not conclusive proof and the
Courts/Tribunals are not barred from traversing beyond charge
sheet. In this regard in para 16 of the judgment in Veerappa
and Another v. Siddappa & Anr.9 the coordinate Bench of this
Court held as follows:
"16. Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 provides the
grounds on which the insurance company can avoid the
liability to pay the compensation under the Act. One such
ground is, if a policy is obtained by a representation of fact
which was false in some material particular. Section 172
confers on the Claims Tribunal a power to award
compensatory costs, if it is satisfied that the policy of
insurance is void on the ground that it was obtained by
representation of fact which was false in any material
ILR 2009 KAR 3562
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
particular or any party or insured has put forward a false
or vexatious claim or defence. Sub-Section (3) of Section
172 also speaks of criminal liability in respect of such
misrepresentation. However, it restricts the compensatory
costs to be awarded to only Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, the Act
provides for taking action against a party who sets up a
false or vexatious defence. However, the cost of Rs.1,000/-
prescribed under the aforesaid provision, has failed to act
as a sufficient deterrent to the parties setting up false
claim or defence. The experience has shown that this
branch of law is slowly getting into the hands of
unscrupulous people who are making a mockery of
judicial process. A disturbing trend of unholy alliance
among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and some
times even the Insurance Company, to siphon out the
public money, and make an unlawful gain is fast
emerging. It is also gaining respectability and persons
who indulge in such practices are acclaimed as most
successful in their respective profession. This is a
dangerous trend, if unchecked would undermine the
judicial process. As the existing law is inadequate to
check this malady, the Court not only have to be careful in
adjudicating such claims but also find ways to prevent
such abuse. They have to balance the interest of these
accident victims and their legal heirs on one side, by giving
them just compensation at the earliest, thus giving effect
to the mandate of the parliament, and on the other hand,
to see that the very process is not abused and exploited by
a handful of persons, who have attained specialization in
this field, to make personal gains at the cost of the
exchequer. An onerous responsibility lies on the Courts.
Therefore, it is imperative that a strong message is to be
sent to the abusers of the judicial process to discourage
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
them from indulging in such practices as well as the
consequences of such abuse may result in foisting the
liability exclusively on the insured-owner of the vehicle."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Another coordinate Bench of this Court in paras 13,
14 and 15 of the judgment in Mahadevi W/o. Shrishail Kore
and Others vs. Shivaputra and Another10 while considering the
evidentiary value of the charge sheet and whether the Court is
barred from traversing beyond charge sheet held as follows:
" 13. We have, with great respect, perused the
entire judgment. From a perusal of the same, we do not
find any law laid down in the said judgment of universal
application that in all cases where charge sheets were
filed, unless Insurance Company challenges the same
and obtains writ of mandamus, MACTs are required to
act upon the same and proceed to come to a conclusion
that the vehicles named as offending vehicles in the
charge sheet, without any further proof, are to be taken
as the motor vehicles involved in causing the accident,
even in cases where evidence produced points to the
contrary.
14. Further, we find that in the said judgment,
there is no discussion of the relevant provisions of Code
of Criminal Procedure or other cognate provisions of law
under which the police authorities would investigate and
file charge sheets and on the probative value of the
charge sheets vis-a-vis the involvement of a motor
vehicle in causing the accident before the Tribunals trying
M.F.A.No.201689/2016 DD 20.11.2020
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
the compensation cases. Experience of the recent past
shows that instances of fraudulent/collusive involvement
of motor vehicles duly covered by insurance policy in
accident cases are burgeoning and if the insurance
companies are saddled with the burden of challenging
the charge sheets filed throughout the country without
there being no clear legal mandate to do so, their work
would be seriously crippled and they would not be able
to do their insurance business without enhancing the
premium, thereby further burdening the ever suffering
owners of motor vehicles. Even the most liberal reading
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not
spell out such a requirement
15. The question is one of fundamental
importance - what is the standard of proof applicable in
these proceedings? On whom is the initial burden of
proving the accident or, as in this case, involvement of
the offending motor vehicle cast? Is not still the standard
of proof one of "preponderance of probabilities"? Is a
mere charge sheet, which in this case is shown to be
deficient in truth sufficient to tip the balance only on the
premise that insurance company has not dipped deep
into its pockets to challenge the charge sheet- what with
the toxic nexus between the black sheep among the
police, medical professionals and touts of every kind
masquerading the field which has become a notorious
fact of life. We are afraid, we would be muddling the field
further for the already befuddled members of MACT by
accepting the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants on this aspect."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
22. The above judgments show that neither the charge
sheet is conclusive proof of involvement of insured vehicle,
rashness and negligence on the part of the charge sheeted
driver nor it bars the Court/Tribunal from considering the other
evidence on record.
23. Admittedly, RW.1/the driver of the bus, on the
basis of the same charge sheet was tried in C.C.No.1002/2005
by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C.,
Kunigal for the charges for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and he was acquitted on
03.10.2008. That judgment has attained finality. Considering
said judgment, evidence of RW.1 and other material on record,
in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 the Tribunal held that both driver of the
bus and the car were equally negligent. In
M.V.C.No.7828/2005, M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and
M.V.C.No.583/2006, the Tribunal declined to follow the finding
of the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 only on the ground that
the driver of the bus did not file complaint about the incident
and he failed to prove that despite his efforts, the police did not
register his complaint. The said Tribunal further held that when
the statement of Suresh/Conductor of the bus recorded by the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
Investigating Officer in investigation was confronted to the
driver, he admitted that Suresh has given statement before the
police imputing negligence to the driver himself. At the outset,
the Tribunal was grossly in error in confronting the statement
recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to the
driver of the bus who was not the maker of the statement and
the said statement was wholly inadmissible in evidence under
Section 162(1) of Cr.P.C which reads as follows:
"162. Statements to police not to be signed: Use of
statements in evidence.- (1) No statement made
by any person to a police officer in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced
to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor
shall any such statement or any record thereof,
whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part
of such statement of record, be used for any
purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any
inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under
investigation at the time when such statement was
made:
Provided that when any witness is called for
the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose
statement has been reduced into writing as
aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved,
may be used by the accused, and with the
permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to
contradict such witness in the manner provided by
section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
1872); and when any part of such statement is so
used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-
examination of such witness, but for the purpose
only of explaining any matter referred to in his
cross-examination.
The above provision clearly shows that a statement made
before the police can be used to contradict by the maker of the
statement and not the other person. Therefore the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.7828/2005, M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and
M.V.C.No.583/2006 has committed grave error in relying on
such statement.
24. The claimants themselves have produced sketch of
the scene of occurrence and got admitted the same in
evidence. Admittedly, car was proceeding from Dharmasthala
to Bangalore and bus was proceeding from Bangalore to
Dharmasthala passing through Kunigal. In that event, drivers
of both vehicles should have driven their vehicles on their left
side of their road. Sketch of scene of offence shows that driver
of the car has come to its extreme right side and hit the bus.
Similarly, the bus was also on its left side on the road. The
sketch of scene of offence further shows that there was
sufficient space on the left side of the car in its lane. Car being
a smaller vehicle, if at all the driver of the car was in moderate
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
speed, there was scope for him to take the car on his left side
and avoid the accident. Having regard to its size, bus had little
space on its left side in its lane. Therefore as rightly observed
by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.7916/2005, the scope of the driver
of the bus to go on his left side was comparatively lesser than
the car driver.
25. Reading of the judgment in C.C.No.1002/2005 by
the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) & J.M.F.C., Kunigal
shows that RW.1 was acquitted not by giving benefit of doubt,
but he was given an honorable acquittal. Claimant Reena
contends that in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 neither she nor any other
eyewitnesses were examined, therefore that led to an incorrect
finding on the negligence in that case. There was no
impediment for the claimants in that case to examine her to
prove entire negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It
is also material to note that the claimant Reena who alleges
rashness and negligence against the driver of the bus was cited
as CW.10 in the charge sheet, but she did not tender her
evidence in the said criminal case. There is no explanation for
the same. Learned Magistrate noted that one of the alleged
eyewitnesses turned hostile and the evidence of other
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
witnesses of they being eyewitness was unacceptable. Under
the circumstances, whether the driver of the bus failed to file
complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the police did not
act on his complaint etc. cannot be magnified.
26. Sketch of the scene of offence produced by the
claimants being their own document becomes their evidence.
On producing such document, claimants cannot ask the Court
to rely only on one part of the document and reject the other
part of the document which is adverse to them. Claimants
cannot approbate and reprobate together and the entire
document has to be considered. In similar situation the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para 13 of the judgment in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla11 held as follows:
"13. However, the factum of an accident could also
be proved from the first information report. It is also to be
noted that once a part of the contents of the document is
admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on
record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that
the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had
not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It
was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to
rely upon them."
(Emphasis supplied)
(2007) 13 SCC 476
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
27. In the light of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
finding of the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 is sound and
sustainable, whereas the finding of the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.7828/2005, M.V.C.No.7829/2005 and
M.V.C.No.583/2006 fixing the entire negligence to the driver of
the bus is unsustainable. That needs to be modified by
imputing 50% negligence to deceased Nandan Shet and
RW.1/driver of the bus each. Though there cannot be any
dispute about the principle laid down in the judgment relied on
by the claimant Reena that the proceedings under Section 166
of M.V.Act are summary in nature and the burden of proof
beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable, having regard to the
evidence on record, the said judgment cannot be beneficially
applied to advance her contention.
Reg. Quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.7828/2005
regarding death of Nandan Shet and I.A.No.1/2024:
(M.F.A.No.10008/2013 & M.F.A.No.5074/2014)
28. In this petition, the claimant contended that her
husband Nandan Shet was running his own software company
and was also working with Atrium Technologies and he was
earning Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per month. She further
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
claimed he was an income tax assessee and due to his death,
she is subjected to pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary
damages, thus claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The
same was denied by the contesting respondent.
29. The Tribunal did not award anything to the claimant
in this case on the head of loss of dependency on the ground
that PW.1-claimant in her cross-examination admitted that she
is working in Accenture Software company and in the
connected matter she has admitted that at the time of
accident, she was getting salary of Rs.13,60,000/- and at the
time of evidence, she was earning Rs.15,90,000/-, therefore
she was not the dependant of the deceased. The Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on other heads as
follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. amount in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency Nil
2. Loss of consortium 1,00,000/-
3. Funeral & obsequies expenses 50,000/-
Total 1,50,000/-
30. However, the rejection of awarding any
compensation on the head of pecuniary loss to the claimant in
this case is contrary to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
of this Court in A.Manavalagan vs A.Krishnamurthy and
Others.12. In para 8 of the said judgment, this Court formulated
the following point for consideration:
"What are the principles for determining
compensation, where the claimant is not a dependant?"
Answering that question, it was held that in such cases, there
would not be compensation on the head of loss of dependency.
However, there would be loss of estate. In para 20 of the said
judgment, this Court held that though the quantum of savings
vary from person to person, there is a need to standardize the
quantum of savings for determining the loss of estate (where
the claimants were not dependants), in the absence of specific
evidence to the contrary. It is further held that the quantum of
savings can be taken as 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
where the spouses are having common establishment and 1/4th
where the spouses are having independent establishment.
31. Reena claimed that herself and deceased were
living together. In the light of the above judgment, to award
compensation on the head of loss of estate, this Court has to
first assess the income of the deceased, take 1/3rd of the same
as savings of the deceased and loss of estate.
ILR 2004 KAR 3268
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
32. Though the claimant contended that her husband
was running one software company and working in another
company, absolutely no material was produced in proof of he
being owner of any company. She produced Ex.P14 to show
that deceased was Mechanical Engineering Graduate and
Ex.P16 to show that he was earning salary of Rs.7,000/- per
month from Magma Solutions. However, in both those
documents the name of the candidate is shown as Narayana
Janardhan Phayde. But as per the police records and the claim
petition the name of her husband was Nandan Shet. Claiming
that her husband's name was Narayan Janardhan Phayde and
subsequently changed his name to Nandan Janardhan Shet,
she produced Ex.P12/the xerox copy of an affidavit purportedly
sworn to by Nandan Shet or Narayan Phayde. So far her
relationship with deceased Nandan, as per the charge sheet
records she was wife of the deceased Nandan. That fact was
not even disputed by the respondents. However, the question is
whether deceased was an Engineering Graduate earning
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by the claimant
Reena.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
33. Though the claimant produced the salary certificate
Ex.P16, the author of the said document was not examined to
prove the same. Though she pleaded in the petition that the
deceased was income tax assessee, she did not produce any
income tax returns of the deceased nor his pan card.
34. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed seeking leave to produce the
following documents:
(i) Employer Accenture termination letter
(ii) Father's death certificate
(iii) Geetha Technologies Invoices and quotations
(iv) Vijaya Bank Current account cheque of Geetha
Technologies
(v) Proof that Vijaya Bank Current Account of Geeta
Technologies was in the name of Narayan J. Phadye
(vi) Newspaper clip of husband's name change
(vii) Driving License and MIT Engineering College
Identity Card of husband
(viii) Driving licence of mother-in-law
(ix) CHC Kunigal Referral card
(x) Sagar Apollo Physiotherapy advice
35. Such application is filed after 20 years of filing of
the claim petitions and ten years of filing of these appeals.
There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in
producing the said documents. Though the claimant contended
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
that her husband was doing business etc. till 2005, the
documents produced are not authenticated documents. If the
deceased had Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- income per
month, he ought to have submitted the income tax returns.
Even at this stage, the income tax returns and pan card of the
deceased or any registration certificate issued by the Registrar
of the Companies or Department of Shops and Establishments
are not produced to prove the ownership of the companies or
his other employment as claimed. However, in inquest
mahazar, it is stated that the deceased was software engineer.
Degree certificate shows that he was mechanical engineer. So
it can be considered that he was an engineer. As there is no
proof of income, his income has to be notionally considered. In
Kandasami vs. Linda Briyal13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court for
the accident of the year 2008, considered the notional income
of an engineer at Rs.25,000/-. In this case, the accident is of
the year 2005. Therefore his income can be notionally
considered at Rs.20,000/-.
36. As per Ex.P13 the copy of the driving licence of the
deceased, his date of birth was 18.10.1974. The accident
occurred on 14.10.2005. Therefore as on the date of the
Civil Appeal No.3125/2023 Dated 24.04.2023
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
accident, the deceased had completed 30 years 11 months and
27 days. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi14
considering the age and occupation of the deceased, 40% has
to be super added to his income. Thus his monthly income
would be Rs.20,000/- + Rs.8,000/- (40% of Rs.20,000/-) =
Rs.28,000/-. His annual income would be Rs.28,000/- x 12=
Rs.3,36,000/-.
37. As per the Finance Act, 2004, the tax payable on
his income would be Rs.74,800/-. (Rs.3,36,000 - Rs.1,50,000
=Rs.1,86,000/-. 30% of Rs.186,000/- = Rs.55,800/-. Taxable
income would be Rs.55,800/- + Rs.19,000/- = Rs.74,800/-.
Further Rs.2,400/- has to be deducted towards professional
tax. Therefore his net income after deducting the same would
be Rs.3,36,000-/- - Rs.77,200 (Rs.74,800 + Rs.2,400) =
Rs.2,58,800/-.
38. As on the date of the accident, the deceased was
aged above 30 years. In view of para 42 of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
Corporation15 the applicable multiplier is 16. As per the
judgment in Manavalagan's case, the savings of the deceased
has to be considered at 1/3rd and that constitutes the loss of
estate to the claimant. Therefore, the compensation payable on
the head of loss of estate is Rs.13,80,266.66 rounded to
Rs.13,80,267/-. (Rs.2,58,800 x 16 x 1/3).
39. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, Rs.40,000/- on the
head of loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- on the head of
funeral expenses and transportation of the dead body needs to
be awarded. As the deceased himself contributed 50% towards
occurrence of the accident, claimant would be entitled to 50%
of the assessed compensation as follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. amount in Rs.
1. Loss of estate 13,80,267/-
2. Loss of consortium 40,000/-
3. Funeral expenses and 15,000/-
transportation
Total 14,35,267/-
Rs.14,35,267/- (-) 50% of negligence = Rs.7,17,633.5 rounded
to Rs.7,17,634/-. Claimant contends that the compensation
shall carry interest at 18% per annum. Respondent No.1 is
Public Sector Corporation. Though the accident was common,
(2009) 6 SCC 121
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
the claimant by her own omission in getting all her claim
petitions consolidated has caused delay in disposal of the cases
before the Tribunal. Even before this Court also, there is
nothing to attribute delay to respondent No.1. She has filed
appeal after delay of 258 days. Therefore there are no grounds
to grant such exorbitant interest. The compensation shall carry
interest at 6% per annum. Respondent No.1/KSRTC is liable to
pay the said compensation to the claimant with interest at 6%
per annum. I.A.No.1/2024 is liable to be dismissed and
M.F.A.No.10008/2013 and M.F.A.No.5074/2014 deserve to be
allowed in part.
Reg. Quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.7829/2005
(M.F.A.No.2751/2014, M.F.A.No.5075/2014)
40. There is no dispute that in the accident Geetha
Shet/mother-in-law of the claimant died. In this case the
claimant contended that deceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per
day, utilizing the same for the family and thereby there was
loss of estate. She claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on
different heads.
41. The Tribunal considering the admission of the
claimant that she is getting salary of Rs.13,60,000/- did not
accept her claim for loss of dependency. Though the Tribunal in
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
para 16 of the judgment held that she is entitled to Rs.50,000/-
on the head of loss of estate, while computing has taken the
same at Rs.1,00,000/- and awarded funeral expenses of
Rs.50,000/-. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- payable by KSRTC.
42. KSRTC questions the entitlement of the claimant for
compensation and claimant has questioned adequacy of
compensation.
43. There is clear admission on the part of the claimant
that she was employed and earning Rs.13,60,000/- at the time
of the accident. Though she claimed that her mother-in-law
was earning Rs.2,000/- per day, that means Rs.60,000/- per
month, nothing was produced in proof of such income.
Claimant's own document Ex.P11 the inquest mahazar of
deceased Geeta Seth states that deceased was a homemaker.
Under the circumstances, the claimant is not entitled to any
compensation either on the head of loss of estate or loss of
dependency. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra and Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram16 on the head
(2018) 18 SCC 130
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
of loss of consortium, compensation is payable only to spouse,
parents and children as spousal, filial and parental consortium
respectively. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra the
compensation payable on the head of transportation of dead
body and funeral expenses is Rs.15,000/- only. In view of the
finding regarding negligence, KSRTC and Insurer of the car are
liable to Rs.7,500/- each to the claimant with interest at 6%
per annum. Under the circumstances, M.F.A.No.5075/2014 is
liable to be dismissed and M.F.A.No.2751/2014 deserves to be
allowed in part.
Reg. Quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.583/2006:
(M.F.A.No.2750/2014 & M.F.A.No.5076/2014)
44. In this case the claimant contended that prior to the
accident she was working as Software Engineer earning salary
of Rs.74,750/- per month. She claimed that in the accident
she suffered grievous injuries and spent huge amount for the
treatment and therefore she is entitled to compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents. KSRTC and the Insurer
denied such injuries and her entitlement to compensation. In
support of her contentions she produced Ex.P3 wound
certificate, Ex.P4 the medical bills and Ex.P6 discharge
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
summary. In support of her employment and income she
relied on Exs.P21 and P22 Employment Confirmation Certificate
and two pay slips respectively. As per the wound certificate
Ex.P3 the claimant had sustained the following injuries:
(i) Concussive head injury;
(ii) Fracture of right Zygoma and lateral wall of right
maxillary sinus.
45. The Tribunal considering the evidence has awarded
compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- on different heads as follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Pain and agony 50,000/-
2. Medical Expenses 11,000/-
3. Attendant charges, food, diet, 6,000/-
nourishment, conveyance etc.
(Rs.3,000 x 2 days)
4. Loss of amenities, 1,00,000/-
disappointment, discomfort,
disability etc on account of
disability
Total 1,67,000/-
46. Though the claimant contended that due to the
injuries she has suffered permanent physical disability, leading
to underperformance in her profession and forcing her to resign
etc, neither she produced any disability certificate nor
examined the doctor in support of the medical records
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
produced by her. As per Ex.P3/wound certificate, only injury
No.2 was grievous one and the other injury was simple in
nature. There was only two days of hospitalization. The
fracture was not that of the weight bearing bone. Therefore,
awarding Rs.25,000/- on the head of pain and suffering is just
and fair.
47. Claimant's own evidence shows that there was no
loss of future earnings. As against that she herself admitted
that her income had increased from Rs.13.6 lakhs to Rs.15.9
lakhs. Claimant did not urge before the Tribunal that her
injuries led to her underperformance in the job and that forced
her to resign. For the first time before this Court such
contentions are being taken which amounts to improvement at
the appellate stage. It is material to note that she herself
conducted the case with all vigour. She has filed I.A.No.1/2024
in this case seeking production of evidence in support of such
contentions, on the ground that she has produced the said
documents under I.A.No.1/2024 in M.F.A.No.5074/2014. While
considering M.F.A.No.5074/2014, this Court has already held
that even that application has no merit. These appeals are of
the years 2013 and 2014. Now, after 10 years the claimant has
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
filed such application and raised such contentions. The
application does not meet the requirement of Order XLI Rule 27
of CPC. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2024 in this case also does not
deserve any merit.
48. In the light of the above discussions, Tribunal was
justified in holding that there is no loss of future earnings and
the disability alleged was not proved. So far as the loss of
income during the laid up period, as already noticed, claimant
was hospitalized only for 2 days and nothing was produced to
prove that she was unable to perform her job for quite a long
time and during that period her employer did not pay her
salary. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding
any compensation on the head of loss of income during laid up
period. Since there was only 2 days of hospitalization, Tribunal
was justified in awarding Rs.6,000/- only, on the head of
conveyance, diet and attendant charges. The medical
expenses were awarded based on the medical records produced
by her. That needs no interference.
49. There was no material to show that there was any
substantial loss of amenities. Having regard to the nature of
the injuries, evidence on record and the fact that the accident
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
had taken place in the year 2005, compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on that head is on the
higher side and that has to be reduced by 50%. Therefore the
compensation payable is as follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Pain and Suffering 25,000/-
2. Medical Expenses 11,000/-
3. Conveyance, diet & Attendant 6,000/-
charges
4. Loss of amenities 50,000/-
Total 92,000/-
50. The accident took place in the year 2005. No
specific reasons are assigned to award interest at 8% per
annum. Awarding 6% interest on the compensation is just one.
It is held that the accident occurred due to contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC and the husband
of the claimant herself who was driving car bearing No.KA-04-
MB-2073. There is no dispute that the car was insured with
respondent No.3. Since the compensation is sought for the
injuries suffered by the claimant as inmate of the car, both
KSRTC and New India Assurance Insurance Company
Ltd./Insurer of car bearing No. KA-04-MB-2073 are liable to
pay the aforesaid compensation in equal proportion.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
Reg. Compensation in M.V.C.No.7916/2005:
(M.F.A.No.1094/2012, M.F.A.No.2473/2012 & M.F.A.No.1222/2013)
51. This case was filed by legal representatives of
deceased Mahesh who was travelling in Santro Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-MB-2073 along with Nandan Shet and
his family. There is no dispute that claimant No.1 was father
and claimant No.2 was the younger sister of deceased Mahesh.
Pending the claim petition, claimant No.1/father died,
therefore, his sons claimant Nos.1(a) and 1(c) and married
daughter claimant No.1(b) were brought on record as legal
representatives.
52. Original claimants contended that Mahesh was a
diploma holder in Computer Science. He was running business
under the name and style of M/s. Conquest Business Solutions
and earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month from the said business.
It was further contended that he was supplying human
resource to Sony India Private Ltd., Bengaluru and from that
business also he was earning. In the claim petition itself the
age of the deceased was mentioned as 31 years. That amounts
to an admission. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in
considering his age as 31 years, though inquest mahazar and
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
post mortem report showed his age as 23 years and 29 years
respectively.
53. The Tribunal states that PW.1 i.e., claimant No.2 in
her cross examination admitted that her father was in service
in Brook Bond India Ltd and her brothers/claimants are working
in factory and sister is married. She was also married and
therefore there was no loss of dependency. Therefore the
Tribunal held that compensation has to be awarded only on the
head of loss of estate. It is no doubt true that if there is no
loss of dependency, in view of the judgment of this Court in
A.Manavalagan's case referred to supra compensation has to
be awarded only on the head of loss of estate. In such case,
the claimants would be entitled only to 1/3rd of his income and
that has to be considered as loss of estate. But the Tribunal
applied the judgment of Sarla Verma's case referred to supra,
deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased,
notionally considered his income at Rs.4,000/- per month,
applied 16 multiplier and awarded Rs.2,88,000/- which
amounts to compensation granted on the head of loss of
dependency and not loss of estate.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
54. To call a statement an admission, it should be clear,
cogent and unequivocal. A truncated stray statement cannot
be taken as admission. In the cross examination of PW.1, it
was not clearly elicited that at the time of death of Mahesh,
claimant No.1 was still working. She has stated that her father
was working in Brook Bond India Ltd. Whether that was before
the death of Mahesh or after the death of Mahesh is not
clarified. At the time of accident claimant No.1 was aged 55
years. There was no material to show that he was then under
the employment of Brook Bond India Ltd. It is quite natural
that if he is not in service as on the date of accident, claimant
No.1 would have depended on the income of his son/Mahesh
who was then aged 31 years. It is also true that there was no
material to show that claimant No.2 who was aged 28 years as
on the date of the accident was depending on Mahesh.
Whatever right accrues to claimant No.1 as on the date of filing
of the petition, devolves on his children/the present claimants.
Therefore, only claimant No.1 has to be considered as the
dependant of the deceased.
55. Nothing was produced in support of the contention
that Mahesh was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month from his
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
business in M/s.Conquest Business Solutions or Sony India Pvt.
Ltd. None were examined from these companies. There was
no material to show that M/s.Conquest Business Solutions was
a company promoted by the deceased or he was one of the
Directors or holding any official position in the said company.
If Mahesh was earning Rs.1,50,000/- certainly he should have
paid the income tax. Neither the income tax returns nor his
bank account statements were produced to prove such income.
Therefore the Tribunal was justified in holding that Exs.P6 and
P7 did not show the income of the claimant and notionally
assessed his income. Absolutely no evidence was produced to
show that the deceased was diploma holder in Computer
Science. Ex.P8 the pan card pertains to M/s.Conquest Business
Solutions and not Mahesh. It is not in dispute that the
deceased was hale and healthy and man of performance at the
time of accident. Considering the same, prevailing wage rates
and cost of living during relevant period, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in assessing
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month.
56. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra and having regard to
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
age and occupation of the deceased, 40% has to be super
added to his income by way of future prospects. Since
deceased was unmarried, 50% has to be deducted for his
personal expenses and the applicable multiplier is 16. As per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's
case referred to supra, claimant No.1 alone is entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/- on the head of filial consortium.
Similarly compensation of Rs.15,000/- + 15,000/- has to be
awarded on the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses
and transportation of the dead body. Therefore, just
compensation payable is as follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency (Claimant 5,37,600/-
No.1) Rs.4,000/- + 40% of
Rs.4,000/- = Rs.5,600/- less
50% of 5,600) X 12 X 16
2. Loss of consortium (claimant 40,000/-
No.1)
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of estate 15,000/-
Total 6,07,600/-
Awarded by Tribunal 2,99,000/-
Enhancement 3,08,600/-
57. The above enhanced compensation is payable with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
realization. KSRTC and Insurer of Car bearing Registration
No.KA-04-MB-2073 are liable to pay the same at 50% each as
he was inmate of the car.
58. There is no dispute that Santro car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-MB-2073 was insured with New India
Assurance Insurance Company Ltd. which was respondent No.3
in M.V.C.No.7916/2005. Though the Tribunal in reasoning
portion held that Insurer is liable, in the operative portion
fastened the liability on the owner of the car which is
unsustainable. The insurer of the car is liable to pay the
compensation. Therefore, M.F.A.No.1222/2013 filed by the
owner of the car deserves to be allowed. M.F.A.No.1094/2012
deserves to be allowed in part and M.F.A.No.2473/2012 is
liable to be dismissed. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) M.F.A.No.2473/2012, M.F.A.No.5075/2014 and
M.F.A.No.5076/2014 are dismissed.
(ii) I.A.No.1/2024 in M.F.A.No.5074/2014 and
M.F.A.No.5076/2014 are dismissed.
(iii) M.F.A.No.1222/2013 is allowed.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
(iv) M.F.A.No.1094/2012, M.F.A.No.10008/2013,
M.F.A.No.2750/2014, M.F.A.No.2751/2014 and
M.F.A.No.5074/2014 are partly allowed.
(v) The impugned awards of the Tribunals are modified
as follows:
(a) Claimant in M.V.C.No.7828/2005 is entitled to
compensation of Rs.7,17,634/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization, payable by
respondent No.1/KSRTC.
(b) Claimant in M.V.C.No.7829/2005 is entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till its realization, payable by
respondent No.1/KSRTC and respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Insurance Company Ltd. in equal proportion.
(c) Claimant in M.V.C.No.583/2006 is entitled to
compensation of Rs.92,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization, payable by
respondent No.1/KSRTC and respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Insurance Company Ltd. in equal proportion.
(d) Claimants in M.V.C.No.7916/2005 are entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.3,08,600/- with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till its realization, payable
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1057-DB
C/w MFA No.1094/2012, MFA No.2473/2012
MFA No.1222/2013, MFA No.2750/2014
MFA No.2751/2014, MFA No.5074/2014
MFA No.5075/2014 & MFA No.5076/2014
by respondent No.1/KSRTC and respondent No.3/New India
Assurance Insurance Company Ltd. in equal proportion.
(e) The award of the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.7916/2005
regarding apportionment of the compensation is maintained.
(f) New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd. and
KSRTC shall deposit the said amounts before the Tribunals, on
adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
(g) On such deposit of the compensation in the above
cases, the Tribunals shall digitally release the amount to the
claimants on furnishing the required documents.
(h) Registry shall transmit the trial Court records to the
Tribunals forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
KSR
