[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Divisional Controller vs Smt.Malllammam @ Geeta W/O. ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad, Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
MFA No. 101993 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 100749 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MFA NO. 101993 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W. MFA NO. 100749 OF 2021 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.101993/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALLAMMA @ GEETA
W/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANDIHAL, TAL: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
VISHAL
NINGAPPA 2. KUMAR. RAMAKRISHNA
PATTIHAL
S/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
PATTIHAL
Location: HIGH COURT R/O. NANDIHAL, TAL: RAMADURG,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
3. KUMAR. SHRINIVAS
S/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. NANDIHAL, TAL: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123,
APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
MINORS HENCE THEY
REP. BY N/G MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
MFA No. 101993 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 100749 of 2021
HC-KAR
SMT. MALLAMMA @ GEETA
W/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANDIHAL, TAL: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
4. SMT. PADAWWA W/O. BASANAGOUDA
TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. NANDIHAL, TAL: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NWKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
BELAGAVI THROUGH DEPOT MANAGER,
NWKRTC BAILHONGAL DEPOT,
BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2613/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION; AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
MFA No. 101993 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 100749 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 100749/2021:
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NWKRTC AND SELF INSURANCE FUND
AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI, CUSTODIAN CUM
INSURER OF BUS NO.KA-31/F-1298,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALLLAMMAM @ GEETA
W/O. TULASINGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANDIHAL, TQ: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. KUMAR. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. KUMAR. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
HENCE THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY
N/G MOTHER I.E. PETITIONER NO.1,
SMT. MALLAMMA @ GEETA
W/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANDIHAL, TQ: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
MFA No. 101993 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 100749 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. SHRI. BASANAGOUDA
S/O. TULASIGEREPPA VASAN,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5
WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.
5. SMT. PADAWWA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA TULASIGEREPPA VASU,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. NANDIHAL, TQ: RAMADURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1 TO R3 AND R5 ARE TREATED
AS LRs. OF DECEASED R4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2613/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.23,67,129/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION; AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
MFA No. 101993 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 100749 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
1. The claimants have filed an appeal in MFA
No.101993 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation
against the judgment and award dated 01.02.2021 passed
in MVC No.2613 of 2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (for
short, "the Tribunal"). However, the Corporation has also filed
an appeal in MFA No.100749 of 2021 challenging the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim
petition before the Tribunal are that, on 26.06.2015 at about
9:30 a.m., the deceased, Sri Tulasigereppa, son of
Basanagouda Vasan, was proceeding as a pedestrian towards
the platform at the NWKRTC/KSRTC bus stop at Yaragatti.
When he came between Platform Nos.2 and 3 at the bus stop,
a bus bearing registration No. KA-31/F-1298, driven in a rash
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
HC-KAR
and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against
him. Due to the impact, Sri Tulasigereppa fell to the ground
and the bus ran over his left leg. He was shifted to different
hospitals for treatment. Subsequently, he succumbed to the
injuries on 14.10.2015. The claimants state that they spent
about ₹4,00,000/- towards medical expenses.
4. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged
about 42 years and was working as a Conductor in NWKRTC,
earning about ₹20,000/- per month. It is also stated that there
was chance of him being promoted as a Controller etc.
Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, claimant Nos.2 and
3 are the minor children, and claimant Nos.4 and 5 are
the parents of the deceased. The deceased was stated to be the
only breadwinner of the family.
5. The respondent-Corporation, being the owner-cum-
insurer of the offending vehicle, filed objections denying the
age, occupation, income of the deceased, accident and also the
medical expenses. It was also contended that the
compensation claimed is exorbitant.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
HC-KAR
6. The Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the
evidence, and awarded a total compensation of ₹23,67,129/-
under different heads.
Loss of dependency to claimant No.1 ₹8,09,261/-
Loss of spousal consortium to claimant No,1 ₹40,000/-
Funeral expenses ₹15,000/-
Medical expenses ₹3,38,773/-
Loss of parental consortium to claimant Nos.2 & ₹40,000/-
Loss of dependency to claimant Nos.2 & 3 ₹7,99,342/-
Loss of filial consortium to claimant No.4 ₹40,000/-
Loss of estate to claimant No.4 ₹15,000/-
Loss of filial consortium to claimant No.5 ₹40,000/-
Loss of dependency to claimant No.5 ₹2,69,753/-
Total ₹23,67,129/-
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the records.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that the claimants have sought enhancement of
compensation contending that the Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation towards food, nourishment, transportation,
and attendant charges, though the deceased was hospitalized
as an inpatient for about 110 days from 26.06.2015 to
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
HC-KAR
14.10.2015, the Tribunal did not properly consider the
escalation under loss of consortium for all the five claimants.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-Corporation submits that the Corporation
has challenged the judgment and award contending that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties
and on perusing the impugned judgment and award, it is
noted that the accident, age of the deceased, and his
occupation as a Conductor have not been disputed by the
Corporation. The pay slips produced at Exhibits P-322 and P-
323 show that the deceased was drawing a gross salary of
₹10,979/- per month. Accordingly, his annual income would
be ₹1,31,748/- (₹10,979/- × 12). The said annual income does
not attract income tax during the relevant year-2015-16, as
the taxable slab begins above ₹2,50,000/-.
11. The deceased was aged 42 years and was in
permanent employment. In view of the principles laid down
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
HC-KAR
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects at 30% are to be added.
Accordingly, ₹39,524/- (30% of ₹1,31,748/-) is added towards
future prospects. Since the deceased was survived by his wife,
two minor children, and parents, one-fourth of the income is
deducted towards personal expenses. Considering the age of
the deceased, the appropriate multiplier is 14. Thus, the "loss
of dependency" would be ₹17,98,356/- (₹1,31,748/- +
₹39,524/- − 1/4th × 14).
12. The claimants, namely the wife, two minor children,
and parents (five in number) are entitled to consortium at
₹40,000/- each. The Tribunal has rightly awarded consortium
of ₹40,000/- each to claimant Nos.1 to 5, (in all ₹2,00,000/-).
The Tribunal has rightly awarded ₹15,000/- towards
transportation of the dead body and funeral
expenses, ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, and ₹3,38,773/-
towards medical expenses, based on the medical bills
produced at Exhibits P-19 to P-71, P-72 to P-321. As the
deceased was hospitalized as an inpatient for about 110 days
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
HC-KAR
from 26.06.2015 to 14.10.2015, the claimants are also entitled
to ₹50,000/- towards food, nourishment, transportation, and
attendant charges, which shall be awarded as a global
amount without interest.
13. The learned counsel for the claimants contended
that escalation under consortium should be granted. However,
the accident occurred on 26.06.2015, which is prior to the
decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, which introduced
escalation of 10% every three years. Therefore, escalation in
consortium is not applicable in the present case.
14. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per
annum, which appears to be on the higher side. Considering
the prevailing rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized
banks, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% per annum.
15. Considering the above aspects and having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
that the appeal filed by the Corporation does not merit
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
HC-KAR
acceptance and is liable to be dismissed, whereas the appeal
filed by the claimants deserves to be allowed in part to the
extent indicated hereinbelow. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA
No. 100749 of 2021 is dismissed and the
appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.
101993 of 2021 is allowed in part.
(ii) Claimant No.1 (wife) is entitled to ₹50,000/-
towards food, nourishment, transportation,
and attendant charges as a global
amount without interest.
(iii) The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal
is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum.
(iv) The respondent - Corporation shall
deposit ₹50,000/- within eight weeks from
the date of this order, failing which the
amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum
until payment.
(v) The amount awarded by this Court shall
be released in favour of the claimant No.1 in
accordance with law.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4013-DB
HC-KAR
(vi) The Registry to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
Vnp / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
