Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100619 OF 2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC AND SELF INSURER OF BUS NO.KA-27/F-408, KOPPAL NEKRTC DEPOT, KOPPAL, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV) AND:
1. SMT. LAXMIDEVI W/O LATE S. VENKATESHWARALU @ VENKATESHALU, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SANAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI-583227 KOPPAL DISTRICT.
2. BHARAT S. S/O LATE S. VENKATESHWARAL @ S. VENKATESHALU AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. SANAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI-583227, MOHANKUMAR KOPPAL DISTRICT. B SHELAR
3. S. KIRANKUMAR S/O. LATE S.
Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B VENKATESHALU @ S. VENKATESHALU SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STDENT, 12:23:39 +0530 R/O SANAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI-583227, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
4. NINGAPPA V. PUJAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC BUS BEARING NO. KA-27/F-408, KOPPAL DEPOT, R/O KOPPAL -583231, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
5. SMT. LAXMI W/O LATE BURUJU NARASIMHALU, AGE: 43 YEARS, -2-
OCC: OWNER OF OMNI CAR NO. KA-37/M-7519, R/O H.NO.3, RANGAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADV FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. H.N. GULARADDI, ADV FOR R5, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 23.05.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.466/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, KOPPAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.14,74,624/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the NEKRTC1 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.466/2015 vide judgment and award dated 23.05.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Addl. MACT, Koppal (‘the Tribunal’ for short). North-east Karnataka Road Transport Corporation -3-
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are
as follows: 2.1 On 11.06.2015, the deceased S.Venkateshwaralu @ S.Venkateshalu and another deceased B.Narasimhalu were proceeding in an Omni car bearing Reg.No.KA-37/M-
7519. When they reached near Halavarthi cross, at that
time the NEKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-37/F-408 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Omni car, as a result the deceased Venkateshwaralu and Narasimhalu sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners being the legal representatives of Venkateshwaralu filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on the account of death of Venkateshwaralu in a road traffic accident.
3. In pursuance of the service of notice, driver of the offending bus and NEKRTC filed their statement of -4- objections and the owner of the Omni car has not filed any statement of objections.
4. The driver of the offending bus filed a statement of
objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and it is contended that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Omni car and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the driver of the offending bus.
5. The NEKRTC filed a statement of objections denying
the averments made in the claim petition and it is contended that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Omni car and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against NEKRTC.
6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. -5-
7. The petitioner, to substantiate their case, petitioner
No.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked twenty-one documents as Exs.P1 to P21. In rebuttal the driver of the bus was examined as RW-1 and no documents were produced by the respondents. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.14,74,624/- with interest at the rate of 7% and directed NEKRTC and the owner of the Omni car to deposit the compensation in the ratio of 60:40.
8. The NEKRTC, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for NEKRTC and the learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. Learned counsel for NEKRTC submits that, the
deceased was aged about 45 years as of the date of -6- accident; the Tribunal ought to have added 25% future prospects to the income of the deceased. On the contrary, the Tribunal has added 40% future prospects. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.
13. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the
accident and death of Venkateshwaralu on account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal, considering the certified copy of the charge sheet, rightly recorded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and -7- Omni car and rightly fastened the liability in the ratio of 60:40 respectively. I do not find any illegality on the liability fastened by the Tribunal on both, NEKRTC and the owner of the omni car.
14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the petitioners have not produced any income proof. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident is of the year 2015 and the deceased was aged about 45 years as of the date of accident. The Tribunal ought to have added 25% towards future prospects; on the contrary, it has added 40% towards future prospects. The Tribunal committed an error in adding 40% towards future prospects. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,20,056/- (Rs.8,000/- + 25% of Rs.8,000/- = Rs.10,000/- - 1/3rd of the same for dependancy = Rs.6,667/- x 12 x 14) under the head of loss -8- of dependency. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to total compensation under the following heads: Compensation Particulars awarded by this Court in Rs.
Loss of dependency 11,20,056/- Loss of consortium 40,000/- Loss of love and affection 40,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Funeral expenses and 25,000/-
transportation of body Medical expenses including food, nourishment and attendant 1,00,000/- charges Total 13,40,056/- Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,40,056/- as against Rs.14,74,624/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be reduced. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: -9-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.466/2015 is hereby modified; iii. The petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,40,056/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization; iv. The NEKRTC is liable to pay 60% of the total compensation amount and the owner of the Omni car is liable to pay 40% of the total compensation, and they are directed to deposit the same within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v. Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith; vi. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA/CT: BSB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19