Karnataka High Court
Jharnamma And Ors vs The Divisional Managing Director on 5 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
MFA No. 200087 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200087 OF 2022 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200783 OF 2022(MV-D)
IN MFA.NO.200087/2022:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGING DIRECTOR NEKRTC
BIDAR DIVISION, BIDAR (MD)
NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER KKRTC,
Digitally signed CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA MAIN ROAD,
by NIJAMUDDIN KALABURAGI-585101.
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JHARANAMMA W/O PRABHU
AGED: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. PRABHU S/O AMBJJI
AGED: 43 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR, NOW NIL PATIENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
MFA No. 200087 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022
3. GANGASHETTY S/O PRABHU
AGED 23 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR,
4. ASHWINI D/O PRABHU
AGED 22 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT
ALL ARE RESIDENT AMDALPAD,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER
OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE TRIAL COURT RECORDS
AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE CHALLENGING
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.09.2021 IN MVC NO.
497/2019, BEFORE IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BIDAR.
IN M.F.A. NO.200783 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. JHARNAMMA W/O PRABHU,
AGED: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. PRABHU S/O AMBJJI,
AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
NOW NIL PATIENT.
3. GANGASHETTY S/O PRABHU
AGED 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
MFA No. 200087 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022
4. ASHWINI D/O PRABHU,
AGED 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL RESIDENTS AMDALPAD,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEKRTC BIDAR,
DIVISION BIDAR (MD),
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN MVC NO. 497/2019 AND TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AWARD DATED 21.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.
497/2019 IN THE COURT OF 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC BIDAR.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
MFA No. 200087 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200783 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same
are taken up for final disposal. Both the appeals arise out
of common judgment and hence, they are taken up
together.
2. MFA No.200087/2022 is filed by the North East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bidar Division,
Bidar [for short, 'the NEKRTC'], challenging the liability
fixed on it whereas MFA No.200783/2022 is filed by the
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded
under the judgment and award dated 21.09.2021 passed
in MVC No.497/2019 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC and MACT, Bidar.
3. The parties herein are referred to as per their
rank before the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
4. We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties.
5. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is
that they have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of
M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.28,80,000/- for the
death of Sangmesh son of the first and second claimants
in a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.07.2019 at
about 8.20 p.m. It is alleged by the claimants that on
19.07.2019 at about 8.20 p.m. when the deceased was
proceeding on the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-38/V-
9097 returning to his village Amdalpad, when he came
near Sai High School and Kannadamba Circle, at that time
NEKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-38/F-1186 came from
opposite direction in a high speed and dashed to the
deceased Sangamesh, due to which he sustained injuries
and died on the spot. The driver of the NEKRTC bus said
to have ran away from the spot and even not provided
medical aid to Sangamesh. After receipt of FIR, the police
filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus for the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and
Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and also filed charge
sheet against the deceased rider of the motor cycle for the
offence punishable under Section 181 (3) of M.V. Act. The
claimants have contended that the deceased was working
as a Mason in construction field and earning Rs.21,000/-
per month. Due to the untimely death, the claimants have
lost earning family member and therefore, they claimed
compensation under various heads.
6. In pursuance of the notice to NEKRTC, they
filed statement of objections denying the rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the bus and it has taken
contention that the bus was driving in right direction and
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of
the deceased himself who came and dashed the bus and
therefore, NEKRTC is not liable to pay any compensation.
The police have concocted the document and filed charge
sheet against only driver of the bus by leaving the rider of
the motor cycle. The NEKRTC further denied the age
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
occupation, income and other relief claimed by the
claimants as false and prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
four issues as under:
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 19-7-2019
at about 8.20 pm near Sai High School when
deceased returning on his motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA 38 V 9097 on proper left side at the time
offending NEKSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA 38 F
1186 drive in high speed rash and negligent manner
and dashed to deceased Sangamesh as such he
sustained grievous injuries and he was died on the
spot?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves the violated
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and
from whom?
4. What order or Award?"
8. In order to prove the contention of the
petitioners, second petitioner examined himself as PW-1
and also examined one more witness as PW-2 and got
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
marked 14 documents. On behalf of the respondent, the
driver of the NEKRTC bus was examined as RW-1 but no
documents were marked.
9. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal
answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the
negative, issue No.3 in the partly affirmative and finally
awarded a compensation of Rs.16,87,000/- under the
following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000/-
Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
Towards transportation of dead Rs.15,000/-
body, funeral & obsequies
ceremony expenses
Total Rs.16,87,000/-
10. The Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay
compensation on the respondent-NEKRTC. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, NEKRTC has filed MFA
No.200087/2022 whereas the claimants have filed MFA
No.200783/2022 for enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
11. Learned counsel for NEKRTC has vehemently
contended that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing
the liability solely on NEKRTC even though the charge
sheet came to be filed against both the driver of NEKRTC
as well as rider of motor cycle and wrongly recorded that
bus came on the wrong side, whereas the motor cycle
came on wrong side and hit the bus which is revealed in
Ex.P-6 which is not properly considered by the Tribunal.
He further contended that the rider of the motor cycle did
not possess driving license to ride the motor cycle. Such
being the case, fastening the liability on the NEKRTC is not
correct. Alternatively he prays that atleast the liability
should be fixed on both the rider as well as driver as
contributory negligence on their part.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants
supported the finding of the Tribunal in respect of the rash
and negligent driving of the bus. However, he has also
contended that the income taken by the Tribunal at
Rs.10,000/- per month is meager. Even in the Lok
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
Adalath, according to the notional income chart prepared
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the
notional income is considered at Rs.13,250/- per month
and hence, he prayed to allow their appeal and dismiss the
appeal of NEKRTC.
13. Having heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for our
consideration are:
(i) Whether the claimants prove that the accident
in question dated 19.07.2019 has occurred solely
due to the rash and negligent driving of NEKRTC
bus by its driver?
(ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal in
respect of finding on issue No.1 call for
interference?
(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation. If so, what
amount?
14. We have perused the entire Trial Court records
especially Ex.P-3. The complaint and the Ex.P-3 reveal
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
that the accident dated 19.07.2019 has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of NEKRTC bus
which came from Kannadambe Circle towards Sai Public
School road whereas the deceased rider came from
opposite direction in his motor cycle and there was an
accident and due to the accident the deceased died on the
spot. The bus driver even without providing any medical
aid or informing to the police, ran away from the spot.
The police have charge sheeted against the driver of the
bus for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC
for rash and negligent driving and Section 304A of IPC for
causing death by negligence, apart from Section 187 of
M.V. Act for not informing about the accident to the police
or providing any medical aid to the deceased. Whereas
the police also charge sheeted against the rider of the
motor cycle for not holding the driving license under
Section 181(3) of M.V. Act.
15. We have also considered the document Ex.P-5
the spot mahazar which reveals that the accident has
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
occurred, the NEKRTC bus got damaged on the front right
side bumper and head light and the motor cycle's dome
got totally damaged on the front side. Ex.P-6 the Motor
Vehicles Accident Report reveals about the two damages
caused to both the vehicles. It states that the front right
side bumper of the bus got damaged and front side head
lights are broken. On perusal of these damages, it is clear
that the accident had occurred with the head on collision
at the right side of the bus and the motor cycle was totally
damaged.
16. The contention of the learned counsel for
NEKRTC is that motor cycle rider came on the wrong side
and he has contributed for the accident. He alternatively
contends that contributory negligence may be fixed on the
rider of the motor cycle. But on perusal of the charge
sheet, Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 it is clear that there is no
contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the
motor cycle. That apart, the rider of the motor cycle did
not came from the wrong side. If at all he had came from
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
wrong side, the damage would have caused on the left
side of the bus but not on the right side. The damage
caused to the bus is on the right side head light as well as
right side bumper. It is ipso facto reveals that accident
occurred on the right side of the bus. Therefore, the
contention of the counsel for the NEKRTC cannot be
acceptable. We find that the accident occurred solely due
to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The
Tribunal, by considering the evidence on record, including
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, has rightly held that the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
NEKRTC bus.
17. That apart, even though RW-1 the driver of the
bus was examined before the Tribunal, except his ocular
evidence, there is no other evidence. He has also not
examined any independent eyewitness either passenger of
the bus or conductor of the bus to show that there was no
negligence on his part and rider of the motor cycle was
negligent. Therefore, this Court also holds that this
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
accident has occurred purely due to the negligence on the
part of the driver of NEKRTC bus. The charge sheet was
not challenged by the bus driver before the High Court for
quashing the same. Such being the case, the Tribunal has
rightly held there is no rebuttal evidence and negligence
was fixed on the driver of the bus.
18. That apart, even if the rider of motor cycle does
not hold the driving license, that is not having any
consequence though the charge sheet is filed under
Section 181 of M.V. Act. Such being the case, we do not
find any error in the Tribunal's order fixing the liability on
the NEKRTC. Accordingly we answer point No.1 in favour
of the claimants and against NEKRTC.
19. As regards the computation of compensation,
the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- even though the claimants
claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.21,000/- as a
Mason. According to the notional income chart prepared
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
notional income can be considered at Rs.13,250/- per
month. Accordingly, we take the income of the deceased
at Rs.13,250/- per month. The Tribunal has added 40%
towards future prospects and awarded compensation.
Except taking the income on the lower side, there is no
other dispute from the claimants. The deceased was a
bachelor, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Varma & Others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Another1, 50% of his income is
required to be deducted towards his personal expenses.
Accordingly, we consider the income of the deceased at
Rs.13,250/- per month and the compensation under the
head of loss of dependency is calculated as under:
Computation of loss of dependency
Description Amount
Income Rs.13,250.00
Addition to such income at the
rate 40% towards future Rs.5,300.00
prospects
Monthly Income with the
addition towards future Rs.18,550.00
prospects
2009 ACJ 1298
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
Deduction of 50% towards
Rs.9275.00
personal expenses
Monthly income with addition of
future prospects and deduction Rs.9275.00
towards personal expenses
Therefore, Annual Income Rs.1,11,300.00
Loss of Dependency Rs.20,03,400.00
20. Thus the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.20,03,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/-
towards loss of consortium. We do not find any error with
the same. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and others2, we propose to award
Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the
compensation is re-assessed as under:
Description Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.20,03,400.00
Loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000/- x 4) Rs.1,60,000.00
Conventional head Rs.30,000.00
Total Rs.21,93,400.00
Award of the Tribunal Rs.16,87,000.00
Enhanced Compensation Rs.5,06,400.00
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
21. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by NEKRTC is hereby
dismissed. The appeal filed by the
claimants is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award dated
21.09.2021 passed in MVC
No.497/2019 by the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT,
Bidar is modified.
(iii) The claimants are entitled for an
enhanced compensation of
Rs.5,06,400/- over and above the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal
which shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1450-DB
(iv) The apportionment made by the
Tribunal is unaltered.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal along with Trial Court records
forthwith.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
SWK
CT:SI
