Karnataka High Court
Shilapa And Ors vs The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc on 2 July, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
MFA No. 202612 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 201857 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202612 OF 2024 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201857 OF 2024 (MV-D)
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202612 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHILAPA
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR DODAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA 2. AYUSH
SHIVARAJ S/O VIJAYAKUMAR DODAMANI,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH AGE: 14 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: NIL,
3. KHUSHI
D/O VIJAYAKUMAR DODAMANI,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4. KASTURIBAI
W/O KASHINATH DODAMANI,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
MFA No. 202612 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 201857 of 2024
HC-KAR
APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 MINORS
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN - APPELLANT No.1
ALL ARE R/O: WARD NO.29,
RAJAJI NAGAR,
BEHIND KEB, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION,
TQ & DIST: GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS, ENHANCE AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
NO.XV-VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C NO.111/2022
DATED 31.01.2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM
PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE
APPELLANTS HEREIN, THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201857 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., GADAG DIVISION,
TQ & DIST: GADAG.
NOW REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
MFA No. 202612 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 201857 of 2024
HC-KAR
N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE,
HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHILAPA
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR DODAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. AYUSH
S/O VIJAYAKUMAR DODAMANI,
AGE: 14 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
3. KHUSHI
D/O VIJAYAKUMAR DODAMANI,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4. KASTURIBAI
W/O KASHINATH DODAMANI,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 MINOR
GUARDIAN REPRESENTED BY TEHIR MOTHER
ALL ARE R/O WARD NO.29,
RAJAJI NAGAR,
BEHIND KEB, VIJAYAPURA - 586 109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO
R4; R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
MFA No. 202612 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 201857 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE
LOWER COURT RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2024 AND AWARD DATED
05.02.2024 IN MVC.NO.111/2022 BEFORE THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV VIJAYAPURA, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)
The present appeals arise out of the judgment and
award dated 31.01.2024 in MVC No.111/2022 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV, Vijayapura
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for short). Both the
claimants and NWKRTC ('Corporation', for short) are
before this Court in these appeals.
2. MFA No.202612/2024 is preferred by the
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and
MFA No.201857/2024 is preferred by the Corporation
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
HC-KAR
challenging the liability and the quantum of compensation
awarded.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the
Corporation.
4. The occurrence of accident on 28.11.2021 is not
in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased
Vijayakumar Dodamani, the husband of claimant No.1,
father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of claimant No.4
succumbed to the injuries in the said road traffic accident.
The only dispute raised by the Corporation is with respect
to the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of
the Toyota Fortuner SUV bearing Registration No.KA-22/F-
2198 in which the deceased was traveling.
5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of
Rs.1,00,78,880/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till its realization under following heads:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
HC-KAR
Sl. Award by the
No. Heads Tribunal (Amount
in Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 99,38,880/-
2. Loss of consortium 40,000/-
3. Loss of love and
affection/parental 40,000/-
consortium
4. Loss of filial consortium 30,000/-
5. Funeral expenses and
20,000/-
obsequies
6. Loss to the estate 10,000/-
Total 1,00,78,880/-
6. According to the learned counsel appearing for
the Corporation, as per the Police record it is evident that
the deceased was traveling from Kolar to Vijayapura and
the place of accident and direction indicates contributory
negligence on part of the driver of the Toyota Fortuner
SUV vehicle. In this context the learned counsel
appearing for the claimants supports the finding of the
Tribunal contending that the accident spot and the sketch
prepared during the investigation clearly establish that the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of
driver of the Bus of the Corporation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
HC-KAR
7. Ex.P.18 is the Hand Sketch Map which clearly
shows that the accident point was on the left side of the
road from Kolar to Vijaypaura. Since the deceased was
traveling from Kolar to Vijayapura, his vehicle was
correctly on the left side of the road. Conversely, the
Corporation Bus which was coming from opposite direction
i.e., from Vijayapura to Kolar was expected to be on its
left side, but was instead on the wrong side, resulting in
collision. Thus, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the
driver of the Corporation Bus was solely negligent and
therefore, the contention of the Corporation regarding
contributory negligence is without merit.
8. Now, coming to the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for the
Corporation contends that the Tribunal has failed to deduct
the statutory deductions, such as, income tax and
professional tax while assessing the monthly income of the
deceased, who was an Assistant Teacher in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
HC-KAR
Government Aided School and drawing a substantial
salary.
9. Seeking enhancement of compensation, learned
counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation
awarded under the conventional heads needs to be re-
assessed.
10. There is no material placed on record to
demonstrate that the deceased was in fact paying income
tax or that he was liable to do so. In the absence of any
documentary proof, the Tribunal rightly did not deduct
income tax from the assessed monthly income of the
deceased and hence, the claim of income tax deduction
cannot be sustained. However, the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that
professional tax which is Rs.200/- per month has to be
deducted is justified and hence, just and fair compensation
is to be awarded to the claimants.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
HC-KAR
11. The monthly gross salary under Ex.P.11 is
Rs.49,081/-, deducting Rs.200/- as professional tax, the
monthly salary comes to Rs.48,881/-. Since the deceased
had a permanent job and was below 40 years, adding 50%
towards future prospects, deducting 1/4th towards personal
expenses since the dependents are four in numbers,
applying multiplier of '15', as the deceased aged 38 years
as on the date of the accident, the claimants are entitled
for compensation of Rs.98,98,402/- [48,881 + (50%) x
3/4 x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency.
12. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others1 (Pranay Sethi), under the conventional
heads, the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000 x 4=Rs.1,60,000/-). Adding
10% escalation to the same, it comes to Rs.1,76,000/-.
Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses the claimants
are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under each
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
HC-KAR
head and adding 10% escalation to the same, it comes to
Rs.33,000/-.
13. Thus, the re-assessed compensation payable to
the claimants is as under:
Description Amount
Loss of dependency -- Rs.98,98,402/-
Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
Add: 10% escalation Rs.16,000/- Rs.1,76,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Add:10 % escalation Rs.1,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Add:10% escalation Rs.1,500/- Rs.16,500/-
Total Rs.1,01,07,402/
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.202612/2024 filed by the claimants
is allowed in part.
ii. MFA No.201857/2024 filed by the
Corporation is disposed of.
iii. The appellants/claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,01,07,402/- as
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3588-DB
HC-KAR
against Rs.1,00,78,880/- with interest @
6% per annum till the date of realization as
awarded by the Tribunal.
iv. The apportionment, deposit and release
would be as per the order of the Tribunal.
v. The Corporation shall deposit the
compensation amount before the Tribunal
within a period of six weeks.
vi. The amount in deposit made before this
Court in MFA No.201857/2024 be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
vii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
BL
CT:NI
