Karnataka High Court

Narayanaswamy vs The Divisional Controller on 23 June, 2025

                                                                -1-
                                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:21896
                                                                       MFA No. 1009 of 2013


                                  HC-KAR

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                           DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                            BEFORE
                                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                                 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1009 OF 2013 (MV)
                                 BETWEEN:

                                 1.   NARAYANASWAMY
                                      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                                      (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

                                 A.   SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
                                      D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
                                      AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

                                 B.   VARALAKSHMI
                                      D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
                                      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

                                 C.   ANKITHA
                                      D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
                                      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

                                 D.   KAVITHA
                                      D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
                                      AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF
                                 E.   SUBBAMMA
KARNATAKA
                                      W/O BYYARAPPA
                                      AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

                                      1(B) TO (D) BEING MINOR REPRESENTED
                                      BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
                                      LAKSHMIDEVAMM I.E., PETITIONER NO.1(A)

                                      ALL ARE R/A MOHAMADPURA VILLAGE
                                      CHANDRAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK
                                      CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
                                                                                ...APPELLANTS
                                 (BY SRI.M.B.RAJESHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:21896
                                         MFA No. 1009 of 2013


HC-KAR

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C., KOLAR DIVISION
KOLAR
                                                  ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYKUMAR., ADVOCATE-VC)


      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2012 PASSED
IN MVC NO.12/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND
JMFC, MACT, CHINTHAMANI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA


                       ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant against judgment

and award dated 27.09.2012 passed by the learned Senior

Civil Judge & MACT, Chintamani in MVC No.12/2001.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, it was the case of

the claimant that on 03.10.2000 deceased-Narayanaswamy

met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the

KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 17 F.65; as a result,

he sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment in S.N.R.

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

Hospital, Kolar and spent Rs.1,00,000/- for his medical

expenses. He was earning Rs.6000/- per month by

vegetable and milk vending. Due to the injuries sustained in

the incident, he has suffered permanent disability, with these

reasons he prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. Respondent-KSRTC (for short "Corporation") in its

written statement denied the contentions of the claimant and

further contended that the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the claimant and prays for dismissal of the

claim petition.

5. It appears, during the pendency of the appeal,

the said Narayanaswamy died. The Tribunal by its order

dated 18.08.2005 dismissed the claim petition since claimant

was dead. The legal heirs of Narayanaswamy filed MFA

No.10035/2005 before this Court. The Division Bench of this

Court allowed MFA.No.10035/2005 by order dated

18.09.2007 and matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for

reconsideration. Thereafter, the claimant examined 7

witnesses as PW 1 to 7 and marked documents at Ex.P.1 to

21.

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

6. Considering the facts, the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.4,28,500/- by Judgement dated

01.10.2009. The Corporation challenged the said judgment

and award dated 01.10.2001 before this Court in MFA

No.979/2010 and claimants filed MFA No.1981/2010. The

said appeals were allowed, by this court by order dated

15.07.2011 permitting both the parties to lead additional

evidence and the matter was remanded.

7. After remand of the matter, claimants examined

PW-8 and marked Exs.P-22 to P-34. Respondents have not

led any evidence. The Tribunal reconsidered the contentions

of the parties and passed the award dated 27.09.2012

awarding compensation of Rs.26,700/- towards his medical

expenses, loss of income during the laid down period. The

same is challenged by the claimants in the present appeal.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

Tribunal has awarded compensation of only Rs.26,700/-

which is highly inadequate. His contention is that as per the

guidelines of the High Courts and Supreme Court,

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

contentions of the claim petitioners shall be considered

sympathetically. Deceased Narayanaswamy met with

accident and sufferred serious injuries. His legal heirs are

fighting this litigation for last 20 years considering all these

facts, just compensation be awarded.

10. Learned counsel for respondent contends that since

the claimant himself is dead, his legal heirs are not entitled

for compensation under other heads, except for medical

expenses incurred by the claimant. While disposing of the

appeal in MFA No.979/2010 connected with MFA

No.1981/2010 this court clearly observed that claimant are

not entitled for compensation on all the heads. Thereafter,

as per the observation made by this Court, the Tribunal has

considered the matter on merits and awarded compensation,

which does not call for any interference of this Court.

11. Learned counsel for respondent further submits

that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in

ILR 1990 KAR 4300 in Kannamma vs Deputy General

Manager and also reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1864

Uttam Kumar (Deceased) vs Madhav and Anr, it was

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

held that when the injured claimant dies during the

pendency of the case, his legal heirs are not entitled to any

compensation under other heads, except the amount spent

towards medical expenses, incidental expenses incurred and

loss of income during the laid up period. The Tribunal

awarded the compensation under the said heads it doesn't

call for interference by this Court.

12. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant

relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Oriental

Insurance Company Limtied V. Kahlon alias Jasmaili

Singh Kahlon(deceased) through His legal

representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another,

wherein it is held as under:

"17. The injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident required prolonged hospitalization for six months. The extent of disability suffered was assessed on 16.06.2000 as 100%. The extent of disability, pursuant to physiotherapy was reassessed as 75% on 08.08.2002. In the interregnum, the injured resigned his job on 30.09.2001 at the age of 53 years as he found movement difficult and inconvenient without an attendant as distinct from complete immobility. The injured was possessing professional qualifications in labour laws and Industrial relations along with a Diploma in Personnel Management. He may have had to suffer some handicap in also practicing before the labour court, but cannot be held to have suffered 100% physical disability as his capacity for rendering advisory

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

and other work coupled with movement on a wheel chair with the aid of an attendant could still facilitate a reduced earning capacity. It cannot be held that the injured was completely left with no source of livelihood except to deplete his estate. In assessing, what has been described as a 'Just Compensation' under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind."

18. The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.

13. Considering the contentions of both the parties,

following points emerges for my determination:

Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement?

14. It is not in dispute that Narayana Swamy

sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident. During the

pendency of this case, the injured Narayana Swamy died on

19.10.2004. His legal heirs have filed an application to come

on record. However, the said application was dismissed by

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

the Tribunal by order dated 18.08.2005. The legal heirs then

preferred MFA.No.10035/2005 before this Court. The

Division Bench of this Court after hearing the matter, by its

order dated 18.09.2007 set aside Tribunal's order and

remanded the matter to the Tribunal for re-consideration.

After hearing the parties, the Tribunal disposed off the

petition by judgment and order dated 01.10.2009, awarding

compensation of Rs.4,28,500/-. Being aggrieved by the said

judgment and award, the corporation preferred

MFA.No.979/2010 and claimants preferred

MFA.No.1981/2010 before this Court. Both the appeals were

allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the matter

was once again remanded to the Tribunal by judgment dated

15.07.2011. Thereafter, the Tribunal by impugned judgment

and award dated 27.09.2012, considered the contentions of

the parties and awarded Rs.26,700/- with interest @ 8% per

annum. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant

preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

for the appellant in the case of Kannamma Vs Deputy

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

General Manager1 and Uttam Kumar vs. Madhav and

Another2 were over ruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail

Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative

Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another and held that in such

a case, the compensation has to be assessed accordingly.

16. Undisputedly, in this case, the claimant was

neither a government servant nor having a fixed salary or

income. It was stated that the was suffering from disability

to an extent of 65% to the particular limb and 25% to the

whole body. The Tribunal assessed the compensation by

taking his income as Rs.4,000/- per month and also medical

expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant though

contended that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the

lower side but there is no basis to hold that the said income

was on the lower side. Even as per the chart of Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the

victim of the accident of the year 2008 is Rs.4,500/-.

However, looking at the facts and circumstances of the

ILR 1990 KAR 4300 (FB)

ILR 2002 KAR 1864 (FB)

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21896

HC-KAR

present case, the claimants are entitled for global

compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amount

awarded by the Tribunal.

17. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The judgment and award dated 27.09.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chinthamani in MVC.No.12/2001 is modified.

iii. The claimants are entitled to enhancement of global compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a from the date of the petition till its realization.

iv. Enhanced amount of compensation is marginal. Claimant No.1(a) is wife. Other claimants became majors. Considering the facts, entire enhanced amount shall be released in favour of claimant No.1(a) on due identification.