The Divisional Controller vs G. Annapoorna W/O Late Prabhudev
2026 Latest Caselaw 3120 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller vs G. Annapoorna W/O Late Prabhudev on 9 April, 2026

                                                      -1-
                                                                 MFA No.103179/2015
                                                            C/w. MFA No.104063/2016
                                                                 MFA No.104064/2016


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                                 DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                                PRESENT

                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103179 OF 2015
                                                    C/W.
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104063 OF 2016,
                           MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104064 OF 2016


                      IN MFA NO.103179/2015
                      BETWEEN:

                      THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
                      NEKRTC DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
Digitally signed by   BALLARI R/BY CLO, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
                      SARIGE SADHAN, KALBURGI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
                                                                           ...APPELLANT
BENCH
Date: 2026.04.10      (BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
10:20:08 +0530



                      AND:

                      1.     SMT. G. ANNAPOORNA W/O LATE PRABHUDEV
                             AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: SINECURE,

                      2.   G. GIRIJA D/O LATE PRABHUDEV
                           AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: 1ST YEAR B.COM STUDENT,
                           BOTH ARE R/O: 8TH CROSS, M.J. NAGAR,
                           HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

                             THIS   MISCELLANEOUS   FIRST   APPEAL   IS   FILED   UNDER
                      SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET
                      ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.07.2015, PASSED IN
                      MVC.NO.884/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
                      JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSPET AND ETC.,.
                               -2-
                                            MFA No.103179/2015
                                       C/w. MFA No.104063/2016
                                            MFA No.104064/2016


IN MFA NO.104063/2016
BETWEEN:

1.   G. ANNAPOORNA W/O LATE PRABHUDEV
     AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS, OCC: SINECURE,

2.   G. GIRIJA D/O LATE PRABHUDEV
     AGED ABOUT: 21 YEARS, HINDU
     OCC: STUDENT, VIJAYANAGAR COLLEGE,
     BOTH ARE R/O: 8TH CROSS,
     M.J.NAGAR, HOSAPETE.
                                                     ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   YELLAPPA NAYAK S/O LATE NINGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
     DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING
     REG.NO.KA-35/F-13,
     R/O: TURUMURI VILLAGE,
     BAILHONGAL TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC,
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BALLARI.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

       THIS   MISCELLANEOUS   FIRST   APPEAL   IS    FILED   UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:25.07.2015, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.883/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSPET, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO
APPELLANT AND PASS OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.


IN MFA NO.104064/2016
BETWEEN:

1.   G. ANNAPOORNA W/O LATE PRABHUDEV
                               -3-
                                            MFA No.103179/2015
                                       C/w. MFA No.104063/2016
                                            MFA No.104064/2016



     AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
     OCC: SINECURE,

2.   G. GIRIJA D/O LATE PRABHUDEV
     AGED ABOUT: 21 YEARS, HINDU
     OCC: STUDENT, VIJAYANAGAR COLLEGE,
     BOTH ARE R/O: 8TH CROSS,
     M.J.NAGAR, HOSAPETE
                                                     ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   YELLAPPA NAYAK S/O LATE NINGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
     DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS BEARING
     REG.NO.KA-35/F-12,
     R/O: TURUMURI VILLAGE,
     BAILHONGAL TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BALLARI.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

       THIS   MISCELLANEOUS   FIRST   APPEAL   IS    FILED   UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:25.07.2015, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.884/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSPET, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO
APPELLANT AND PASS OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT
DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
       THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
17.03.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -4-
                                              MFA No.103179/2015
                                         C/w. MFA No.104063/2016
                                              MFA No.104064/2016


                          CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

The claimants in MVC Nos.883/2014 and 884/2014 have

maintained the appeals in MFA Nos.104063/2016 and

104064/2016, praying to modify judgment and award dated

25.07.2015 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC and MACT-IV, Hospet (for short 'the Tribunal') and to

enhance the compensation as prayed in the claim petitions.

2. Respondent No.2 in the above referred claim

petitions namely the Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Ballari

(hereinafter referred as 'the Corporation') has directed the

appeal in MFA No.103179/2015 praying to set aside the

impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.884/2014.

3. The claimants namely Smt. G.Annapoorna and her

daughter namely Smt. G.Girija maintained the petitions in MVC

Nos.883/2014 and 884/2014 under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation from the driver and the

Corporation for the death of Sri G.Prabhudev and Kumari Netra

G., respectively. The case of the claimants is that on

08.06.2014 at about 8.05 a.m., when Sri G.Prabhudev and his

daughter Kumari Netra G., were going in a Honda Activa

bearing No.KA-35-V-1319, near Sri Kanavi Veerabhadreshwar

Temple on NH-13, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-35-F-13 came

at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed

against their vehicle, as a result both of them sustained fatal

injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries sustained in the

said incident.

4. On service of the notice, the driver of the bus and

the Corporation appeared before the Tribunal through their

counsel and contested the claim petitions by filing their written

statement. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed

relevant issues, held enquiry in the matter and disposed of the

claim petitions on merits of the case. The Tribunal, based on

the materials available on record, held that the driver of KSRTC

bus was solely responsible for the accident and accordingly,

allowed the claim petitions in part holding that the claimants

are entitled for compensation of ₹7,16,072/- and ₹11,51,600/-

respectively together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

from the date of petition till its realization.

5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have

preferred the appeals seeking enhancement of the

compensation in both the claim petitions. However, the

Corporation has preferred the appeal only against impugned

judgment and award passed in MVC No.884/2014.

6. Sri Y. Lakshmikanth Reddy, learned Counsel for

Claimants vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has not

considered future prospects of the deceased while determining

compensation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has even

failed to award just and reasonable compensation under

conventional heads. He contended that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal in both the claim petitions is meager

and inadequate. In view of the same, he prayed to allow the

appeals and to award suitable compensation to the claimants.

7. Per contra, Sri S.C. Bhuti, learned Counsel for the

Corporation vigorously submitted that the judgment and award

passed in MVC No.884/2014 is opposed to facts and

probabilities of the case. He submitted that the Tribunal failed

to notice the documents produced at Ex.P9 and P12 being

created documents, based on which the Tribunal wrongly took

that deceased Kumari Netra G., was earning ₹10,200/- per

month. He further submitted that even the multiplier adopted

by the Tribunal is wrong and that the Tribunal has erred by not

deducting interim compensation paid by the Corporation. As

such, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Corporation

and to set aside the judgment and award passed in MVC

No.884/2014.

8. The following points arise for the consideration of

this Court:

i) Whether the claimants have made out valid ground to seek enhancement of the compensation in both the claim petitions?

ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding a total compensation of ₹11,51,600/- to the claimants in MVC No.884/2014?

Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

9. Both the claim petitions in question came to be filed

based on same cause of action i.e., the accident occurred on

08.06.2014 and on the ground that the negligence attributable

to the driver of the KSRTC bus. The Tribunal tried these

petitions together and disposed of the same vide a common

judgment. On appreciating the materials on record, the

Tribunal held that the driver of KSRTC bus was solely

responsible for the accident. Further, the judgment and award

passed in MVC No.883/2013 has not been questioned either by

the driver of the bus or its owner i.e., the Corporation. Though

the Corporation has directed an appeal against the judgment

and award passed in MVC No.884/2014, they have maintained

the said appeal only to question correctness of quantum of

compensation determined in the said petition. Thereby, the

parties to these appeals are not at dispute regarding the

accident in question or actionable negligence on the part of the

driver of KSRTC Bus for its occurrence.

10. The Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹7,16,072/- as

compensation in MVC No.883/2014 under the following heads:

Sl.No.                  Particulars                   Amount (in ₹)

  1.      For loss of dependency                         5,76,072.00

  2.      For loss of consortium                         1,00,000.00

  3.      For loss of love and affection                   10,000.00

  4.      For loss of estate                               10,000.00

  5.      For funeral expenses and                         20,000.00
          transportation of dead body
                                              Total     7,16,072.00

11. The claimants herein have sought enhancement of

the compensation mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has

committed error in not considering the future prospects of the

deceased namely Sri G.Prabhudev while determining the

compensation. The claimants have contended that the

deceased was aged 55 years at the time of the accident.

Admittedly, the deceased was working in TSP Company. He

took voluntary retirement in the said company and thereafter

started working in NECC Roadways Company. He was working

in NECC Roadways Company for three years, prior to the date

of accident. In spite of all these admitted facts, the claimants

did not produce any relevant document before the Tribunal to

prove the actual age of the deceased. In the absence of

relevant document to show actual age of the deceased at the

relevant point of time, the Tribunal relying on the entry in post

mortem report concluded that the deceased was aged 60 years

at the time of accident and applied multiplier of 9.

12. Further, the Tribunal relying on salary certificate

produced at Ex.P11 and the evidence adduced through PW-4

held that the deceased was earning monthly income of

₹8,000/-, deducted 1/3rd of such income towards his personal

expenses by following the decision in Sarla Verma's Case,

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and arrived at ₹5,76,072/- (i.e,

₹5334/- X 12 X 9) as compensation under the head of loss of

dependency. This Court does not find any error committed by

the Tribunal in arriving at this figure.

- 10 -

13. In Pranay Sethi's Case reported in (2017) 16 SCC

680, Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to consider the future

prospects of the deceased for the purpose of determining

compensation under the head of loss of dependency, if the

deceased was below the age of 60 years. In the case on hand,

the deceased was working in a company post his voluntary

retirement that to for a period of 3 years and the claimants

have withheld deceased's age proof document from the

consideration of the Tribunal. On the other hand, the materials

on record probabilise that the deceased was aged more than 60

years at the time of the accident. In view of the same, it is

held that the Tribunal was justified in not considering future

prospects of the deceased for determining the compensation

under the head of loss of dependency.

14. The claimants herein are the wife and daughter of

the deceased. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under the conventional heads is on higher side and more than

the amount stipulated in Pranay Sethi's Case, referred supra.

As such, this Court does not find any valid reason to enhance

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC

No.883/2014.

- 11 -

15. The Tribunal awarded compensation of

₹11,51,600/- to the claimants in MVC No.884/2014 under the

following heads:

Sl.No.                 Particulars                   Amount (in ₹)

  1.      For loss of dependency                       11,01,600.00

  2.      For loss of love and affection                  20,000.00

  3.      For     funeral    expenses          and        20,000.00
          transportation of dead body
  4.      For loss of estate                              10,000.00
                                            Total    11,51,600.00

16. In this case, deceased Kumari Netra G., was a

bachelor. Based on entry in the post mortem report, the

Tribunal took her age as 24 years and adopted multiplier of 18

as held in Sarla Verma's Case, referred supra. Further, the

Tribunal relying on the salary certificate produced at Ex.P9,

considered the earning of the deceased as ₹10,200/- per month

and calculated loss of dependency as ₹11,01,600/- (i.e,

₹5,100/- X 12 X 18).

17. The Corporation has challenged the award passed

in the case mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has erred by

relying on Ex.P9, to determine the avocation and income of the

deceased and failed to notice that the deceased herein was a

under graduate. They contended that the Tribunal was wrong

- 12 -

in taking income of the deceased as ₹10,200/- per month

based on Ex.P9, which is a created document. Per contra, the

claimants have contended that the Tribunal ought to have

taken the total income of the deceased as ₹15,200/- per

month, who was earning a sum of ₹10,200/- by way of salary

and ₹5,000/- by giving tuition.

18. It is the definite case of the claimants that the

deceased was working as Assistant Teacher in K.S.P.L. School

in Basaveshwara Badavane, Hospet and she was getting a

salary of ₹10,200/- per month. It is their further case that the

deceased was earning an additional sum of ₹5,000/- per month

by giving tuition. However, the claimants have not adduced

any documentary evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate

the above contentions except producing a document styled as

'Experience Certificate' at Ex.P9 and examining a witness as

PW-5.

19. In Ex.P9 it is stated that the deceased was working

as Assistant Teacher in K.S.P.L. Higher Primary School since

15.6.2009 till 6.6.2014 and she was handling English and Social

subjects for Primary School Section. As per Ex.P9 the deceased

was drawing a salary of ₹10,200/-. Even PW-5 Sri Shiva

- 13 -

Sl.No.                     Particulars                Amount (in ₹)

  1.       Loss of dependency                           11,34,000.00

  2.       Loss of Consortium                                80,000.00

  3.       Funeral expenses                                  15,000.00

  4.       Loss of estate                                    15,000.00
                                             Total     12,44,000.00

       ix)     Draw awards accordingly.




                                        Sd/-
                                (B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
                                       JUDGE


RKM, YAN
CT: CMU