[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sangeeta W/O Yallari Chanekar on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
MFA No. 100271 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100271 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NWKRTC, HALIYAL DIVISION, HALIYAL,
BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE, NWKRTC,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SELF INSURANCE FUND, NWKRTC,
BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE,
NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SC BHUTI AND SRI VP KULKARNI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2026.04.06 11:17:28
AND:
+0100
1. SMT.SANGEETA
W/O YALLARI CHANEKAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.JEGADAL, TQ: HALIYAL,
DIST: NORTH CANARA.
2. SAGAR
S/O YALLARI CHANEKAR,
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
MFA No. 100271 of 2015
HC-KAR
R/O.JEGADAL, TQ: HALIYAL,
DIST: NORTH CANARA.
3. NIKITA D/O YALLARI CHANEKAR,
AGE: 3 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O.JEGADAL, TQ: HALIYAL,
DIST: NORTH CANARA.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS R/BY
THEIR NATURAL MOTHER AND GUARDIAN
SMT.SANGEETA W/O YALLARI CHANEKAR
(APPELLANT NO.1)
4. HUCHCHAPPA S/O G. PILABANTAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS,
R/O. NWKRTC DEPOT, HALIYAL,
TQ: HALIYAL,
DIST: NORTH CANARA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHAN A. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R2 & R3 ARE MINORS R/BY R1;
R4-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM
TRIBUNAL YELLAPUR SITTING AT HALIYAL IN MVC NO.9/2012
DATED 11.11.2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
MFA No. 100271 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 11.11.2014 passed
by Additional MACT Yallapur, sitting at Haliyal, ('Tribunal' for
short) in MVC no.9/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri SC Bhuti learned counsel for appellants
submitted, appeal was by NWKRTC challenging finding of
Tribunal on negligence. It was submitted as per claimant at
07.45 a.m. on 06.05.2011, when deceased Yallari Chanekar was
riding motorcycle no.MH-10/AM-5230, on Haliyal-Yallapur road,
near Sambrani village, driver of NWKRTC bus no.KA-17/f-831,
drove it in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed
against motorcycle and caused accident leading to death of
Yallari Chanekar on spot. Alleging loss of dependency on account
of his sudden death, his wife and two minor children filed claim
petition against NWKRTC and its driver under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short).
3. On appearance, claim petition was opposed on all
grounds including denying negligence of bus driver in accident.
Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded
evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
HC-KAR
4. Claimant no.1 deposed apart from two others as PW1
to PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. NWKRTC examined driver
as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R9.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to contributory negligence of motorcycle rider as well as Bus
driver apportioned at 50% each and held total compensation
payable was Rs.9,48,000/- and claimants entitled to 50% of it
i.e. at Rs.4,74,000/- with interest at 8% per annum. Aggrieved,
NWKRTC was in appeal.
6. It was submitted NWKRTC had taken a specific
contention in its objections that accident had not occurred due to
rash negligent driving of a bus driver, but due to negligence of
deceased himself. Further Exs.R1 and R2 certified copies of FIR/
complaint and abated charge sheet, arraigned deceased alone.
Besides, accident spot sketch and mahazar marked as Ex.R3
indicated that accident occurred on a 18 feet wide tar road
running North to South with Bus proceeding from South to North
and motorcycle coming in opposite direction and accident spot
being at a distance of 3 feet from Western edge of road,
indicating that motorcycle rider had come on his wrong side and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
HC-KAR
dashed head on against Bus. Under above circumstances
Tribunal was not justified in fastening liability on Bus driver to
extent of 50%. Hence prayed for allowing appeal.
7. Even on quantum, it was submitted that
compensation awarded under conventional heads was excessive
and rate of interest awarded at 8% called for reduction. On said
ground sought for allowing appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
9. There is no representation for respondents. Since
matter is of year 2015 and listed for final hearing it is taken up
for disposal.
10. From above and since only NWKRTC is in appeal,
points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether Tribunal was justified in apportionment of
negligence to extent of 50% against Bus driver?
And
2. Whether assessment of compensation calls for
modification?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
HC-KAR
11. Point no.1: It is not in dispute that accident in
question was a head-on collision between motorcycle and Bus.
Ex.R3 - accident spot panchanama/sketch indicates it occurred
on a State Highway running North - South with 18 feet wide tar
road and Bus proceeding from South to North. Accident spot
shown in Ex.R3 is at a distance of 3 feet from western edge
which would mean that motorcyclist had traversed to his wrong
side at time of collision. However in his deposition, RW1
admitted that road near accident spot was curved and downhill.
Even accident spot sketch shows curve. In his deposition, RW1
stated that at time of accident, there were only 3 passengers in
Bus and he was driving Bus in slow speed and observing all
traffic rules and when he saw motorcyclist driving it in rash and
negligent manner, he took Bus to left side, applied brakes and
stopped vehicle. But motorcyclist nevertheless dashed against
bus. Though there are various suggestions about accident having
occurred in middle of road and bus driver having reversed
vehicle and parked it on left side, they are denied. But accident
spot sketch would indicate that body of deceased motorcyclist
was lying at a distance of 21 feet from collision point and
motorcycle lying even further. In case, Bus had stopped and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
HC-KAR
motorcycle had dashed against Bus, there would be no occasion
for motorcycle and motorcyclist to have sprung back and fallen
at a distance of 20 feet from collision point. This would give
credence to contention of claimants that driver of bus was also
driving it in rash and negligent manner, failed to control Bus and
collision resulted in death of motorcyclist. If as admitted,
accident spot was preceded by a downhill right curved road,
driver driving a heavy passenger vehicle ought to have traversed
same carefully after sounding horn. There is no assertion about
having taken such precaution. At same time, it cannot be denied
that collision point was on wrong side of motorcyclist. Whether it
was on account of motorcyclist trying to evade accident cannot
be ascertained for want of specific material.
12. Under above circumstances it appears, finding of
Tribunal is on appreciation of entire material on record and
cannot be stated to be perverse or capricious, warranting
interference. Point no.1 is therefore answered in 'affirmative'.
13. Point no.2: Though contention is urged about award
under conventional heads and rate of interest awarded being
excessive, it is seen that while passing award, Tribunal did not
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5000
HC-KAR
add future prospects to monthly income, which would offset any
scope for reduction.
14. Under above circumstances, Point no.2 is answered
in 'negative'. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit, if any is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment.
iii. Balance to be deposited within 8 weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM/CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29
