Karnataka High Court
The Division Controller vs S Ashwini And Ors on 26 November, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
MFA No. 201989 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201989 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISION CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC, YADAGIR DIVISION YADAGIRI
(NOW REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE NEKRTC
NOW KKRTC, KALABURAGI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
1. S ASHWINI
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH W/O S. UMESH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SANVI
D/O S. UMESH,
AGE: 05 YEARS,
MINOR THROUGH HER NEXT
FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER
S. ASHWINI W/O S. UMESH,
3. BHEEMANNA
S/O NARASAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
MFA No. 201989 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE
ALL R/O: MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.3,
NEAR KANAVI ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
MASKI, TQ: MANVI,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
3a. MAHADEVI
W/O BHEEMANNA,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.3,
NEAR KANVI ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
MASKI, TQ: MANVI,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
4. VISHWANATH
S/O BASAVANTRAYA CHENNAPPAGOL,
BADGE NO.882,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF KA-33/F-0378 OF
SHAHAPUR DEPORT DIST: YADAGIRI,
R/O: MARADAGI, POST: SATHKHED,
TQ: JEWARGI, DIST:KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND
R3(A);
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.12.2022 IN MVC
NO.11/2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
AT LINGASUGUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
MFA No. 201989 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the Corporation challenging the
judgment and award dated 21.12.2022 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Lingasugur in MVC 11/2021.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 08.12.2020, when the deceased Umesh
was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-36-EV-3868 near Kasturappa of Panduranga Camp
on Sindhanur-Maski Road, at that time, a bus bearing
registration No.KA-33-F-0378 which was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle
of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
the injuries.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of
the Act seeking compensation for the death of the
deceased along with interest.
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The
respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear
before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded
the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and
award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that
the claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.66,99,675/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present
appeal has been filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the
following contentions:
Re: Negligence
The accident occurred due to sole negligence on the
part of the deceased himself. The deceased rode the
motorcycle in a high speed and dashed to the bus; fell
down and sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries.
The driver of the bus has been examined as RW-2 and he
has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due
to the negligence of the deceased himself; he was riding
the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and came
to the extreme right side and dashed to the bus. The
Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the bus
alone is negligent in causing the accident.
Re: Quantum of compensation:
Firstly, the deceased was a Govt. employee and after
his death, the claimants are getting family pension.
Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
compensation. Moreover, the Tribunal without deducting
the pension amount from the gross salary, has awarded
excessive compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency'.
Secondly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the higher side.
With the above contentions, he prays for allowing the
appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
claimants has raised the following counter-contentions:
Re: Negligence
The accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the bus by its driver. The driver of the bus was
driving the same at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the
deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and
succumbed to the injuries. Immediately after the accident,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
complaint has been lodged against the driver of the bus
and after investigation, the police have registered FIR and
filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The
Tribunal considering the materials available on record has
rightly held that the driver of the bus alone is negligent in
causing the accident.
Re: Quantum of compensation
The Tribunal considering the age and avocation of
the deceased has rightly awarded just and reasonable
compensation.
With the above contentions, he prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
RE: NEGLIGENCE
9. The case of the claimants is that on 08.12.2020 at
about 9 a.m., when the deceased Umesh was riding the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-36-EV-3868 and
proceeding near Kasturappa of Panduranga Camp on
Sindhanur-Maski Road, at that time, a bus bearing
registration No.KA-33-F-0378 which was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the
motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
the injuries.
To prove the case, the claimants have examined
claimant No.3 as PW-1 and one eye-witness as PW-2, and
22 documents were produced and marked as Ex.P-1 to 22.
In order to disprove the case, the respondents have
examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and produced
and marked 4 documents as Ex.R-1 to 4.
PW-1 in his evidence has reiterated the averments
made in the claim petition. PW-2 has categorically stated
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the bus by its driver. The driver of the bus in
order to overtake the vehicles ahead, came to the extreme
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
right side of the road and dashed to the motorcycle of the
deceased, which was coming on the opposite direction. As
a result, the deceased fell down and succumbed to the
injuries.
Immediately after the accident, complaint has been
lodged against the driver of the bus and after
investigation, the police have registered FIR and filed
charge sheet against the driver of the bus.
Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition
before the Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much
below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in
the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must
be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can
arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding
compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or
to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a
summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of
the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act
are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in
this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM -v- ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5 SCC 656, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:
"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court
examined similar situation where the evidence
of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the
Tribunal and that the respondent in that case
was acquitted in the criminal case concerning
the accident. This Court, however, opined that
it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation
of the case registered against the respondent,
prima facie, materials showing negligence were
found to put him on trial. The Court restated
the settled principle that the evidence of the
claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal
on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability and certainly the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt could not have been
applied."
As per spot panchanama Ex.P-22, it is very clear that
the accident occurred on the road, which proceeds from
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
Sindhanur to Maski i.e., from South to North. The
deceased was proceeding on motorcycle from Sindhanur to
Maski and the driver of the bus was proceeding from Maski
to Sindhanur. It is very clear from the sketch, that the
driver of the bus, who was proceeding from Maski to
Sindhanur came to his extreme right side in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the
deceased, which was proceeding from Sindhanur to Maski.
On going through the evidence of the parties and
materials available on record such as FIR, compliant,
sketch, panchanama, charge sheet, IMV report, we are of
the considered opinion that the driver of the bus alone is
negligent in causing the accident. Therefore, the finding of
the Tribunal in respect of negligence is concerned, the
same is confirmed.
RE: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
10. In respect of quantum of compensation is concerned,
as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
case of VIMAL KANWAR AND OTHERS -V- KISHORE
DAN AND OTHERS [(2013) 7 SCC 476], while
determining the compensation towards 'loss of
dependency', only professional tax and income tax have to
be deducted from the gross salary of an employee.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the
income of the deceased and considering other factors such
as age and number of dependents, has rightly awarded
just and reasonable compensation under all heads.
Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in respect of
quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is
confirmed.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
opinion that the appeal filed by the Corporation is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is dismissed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7237-DB
HC-KAR
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is
confirmed.
c) The Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal along
with interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of realization, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
d) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
DM
