Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202660 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200623 OF 2022 MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200684 OF 2022 MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202292 OF 2022 IN M.F.A.NO.202660/2022 BETWEEN:
1. TUKARAM S/O SIDRAM NIMBARGIKAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. RAJKUMAR
S/O TUKARAM NIMBARGIKAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI 3. VINOD Location: HIGH COURT OF S/O TUKARAM NIMBARGIKAR, KARNATAKA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
4. REVANSIDHA
S/O TUKARAM NIMBARGIKAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, ALL ARE R/O: 31, AMAR NAGAR, SOREGAON, TQ: SOUTH SOLAPUR, DIST: SOLAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT GACHINAKATTI COLONY, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) -2- AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V., ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-V, VIJAYAPURA, IN MVC NO.51/2021 AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION. IN M.F.A.NO.200623/2022 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA. NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADHANA, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SADHANA W/O AMOGASIDDHA JODAMOTE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. LAXMI W/O BALAJI KORE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O: MANDRUP, TQ: SOUTH SOLAPUR, DIST: SOLAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT ADARSH NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA - 586 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) -3- THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V., ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 AND AWARD DATED 18.10.2021 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.50/2021, BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-V, AT VIJAYAPURA. IN M.F.A.NO.200684/2022 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA. NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADHANA, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. TUKARAM S/O SIDRAM NIMBARGIKAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. RAJKUMAR S/O TUKARAM NIMBARGIKAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. VINOD S/O TUKARAM NIMBARGIKAR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
4. REVANSIDHA
S/O TUKARAM NIMBARGIKAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE ALL ARE R/O: 31 AMAR NAGAR, SOREGAON, TQ: SOUTH SOLAPUR, DIST: SOLAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT GACHINAKATTI COLONY, VIJAYAPURA - 586 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) -4- THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V., ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 AND AWARD DATED 18.10.2021 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.51/2021, BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-V, AT VIJAYAPURA. IN M.F.A.NO.202292/2022 BETWEEN:
1. SADHANA W/O AMOGASIDDHA JODAMOTE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. LAXMI W/O BALAJI KORE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O: MANDRUP, TQ: SOUTH SOLAPUR, DIST: SOLAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT ADARSH NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA - 586 102. …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V., ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-V, VIJAYAPURA, IN MVC NO.50/2021. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI -5-
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for claimants furnished certified copies of exhibits and depositions. Both counsel submit that they are ready for final disposal. Therefore, matter is taken up for final disposal instead of waiting for trial Court records.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 12.10.2021
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, at Vijayapura, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVCs no.50/2021 and 51/2021, these appeals are filed by NEKRTC as well as claimants. While MFAs no.200623/2022 and
3. Brief facts as stated are at about 10:30 a.m., on
23.11.2020, Sri Sanjay S/o Amogasiddha Jodamote and Smt.Padmavati were riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.MH-13/DL-9481 on Vijayapura-Solapur road. When it was near Banasidda Nagar, Soregaon, driver of NEKRTC Bus bearing registration no.KA-28/F-2080 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In
-6- said accident, both rider and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries and died. Their legal representatives filed claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against NEKRTC.
4. On contest, wherein, NEKRTC not only denied age, occupation and income of deceased, but also, alleged contributory negligence against rider of motorcycle. Tribunal framed following issues: “Issues in MVC no.50/2021
1. Whether the petitioners proves that Sanjay
S/o Amogasiddha Jodamote, died due to the actionable rash and negligent act of driver of Bus bearing no.KA-28/F-2080, in the motor vehicle accident on the date, time and the place as being asserted?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or award.
Issues in MVC no.51/2021
1. Whether the petitioners proves that Padmavati
W/o Tukaram Nimbargikar, died due to the actionable rash and negligent act of driver of Bus bearing no.KA-28/F-2080, in the motor vehicle accident on the date, time and the place as being asserted?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or award.” -7-
5. Both claim petitions were clubbed and common
evidence was recorded. Claimant no.3 in MVC no.51/2021 and claimant no.1 in MVC no.50/2021 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. While driver of NEKRTC Bus was examined as RW.1.
6. On consideration, tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative, no.2 partly in affirmative and no.3 by allowing claim petitions and holding claimants entitled for compensation from NEKRTC as follows: In MVC no.50/2021 Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of income due to Rs.11,22,000/- dependency
2 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 3 Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 4 Towards transportation and Rs. 15,000/-
funeral expenses Total Rs.11,92,000/- In MVC no.51/2021 Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of income due to Rs.13,86,000/- dependency
2 Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- 3 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4 Towards transportation and Rs. 15,000/-
funeral expenses Total Rs.14,56,000/- -8-
7. Challenging said judgment and award, both parties were in appeal.
8. Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel for
NEKRTC submitted, as per Ex.P10-detailed Accident Report, damages noted were only on front side of motorcycle rendering occurrence of accident as stated by claimants impossible. It was submitted, from particulars stated in sketch map, accident could have occurred only while overtaking. Therefore, submitted fastening liability on NEKRTC by tribunal was not justified. Even on quantum, it was submitted award was excessive. In MVC no.51/2021, it was submitted, claimants were husband and major sons of deceased-Smt.Padmavati. Therefore, they were not entitled for compensation.
9. On other hand, Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned
counsel for claimants submitted, there was no merit in appeals by NEKRTC. It was submitted, in objection filed, NEKRTC had specifically pleaded that driver of Bus was driving Bus in moderate speed and when it was moving near Banasidda Nagar, Soregaon on Solapur-Vijayapur road, rider of motorcycle all of a sudden came from left side to right side to join main
-9-
road in high speed and rash and negligent manner, without noticing Bus moving on main road, lost control over it, dashed to Bus, fell down, sustained injury and died. However, police investigation records including accident spot sketch and Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report about damages sustained would contradict such contention.
10. On quantum, it was submitted, income assessed by tribunal in both cases was on lower side. It was submitted, in MVC no.51/2021, deceased Padmavati was determined to be 45 years of age, working as vegetable vendor earning
`20,000/- per month. However, tribunal considered her monthly income at `11,000/- which was on lower side. It was further submitted, tribunal erred in not adding any future prospects to monthly income. Even award under conventional heads was not in accordance with ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1 and sought enhancement.
11. Likewise, in MVC no.50/2021, it was submitted deceased Sanjay was earning `20,000/- per month working as
(2017) 16 SCC 680 - 10 -
vegetable vendor. However, tribunal considered his monthly income as `11,000/- and without adding future prospects awarded meager compensation. It was also submitted that award under other heads was not in accordance with ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).
12. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and certified copies of pleadings,
depositions and exhibits made available for perusal by learned counsel for claimants.
13. From above, since NEKRTC is in appeal on negligence as well as on quantum, while claimants are seeking for enhancement of compensation, points that would arise for consideration are : “1. Whether tribunal was justified in holding occurrence of accident was due to rash and negligent driving by NEKRTC Bus driver ?
2. Whether compensation assessed by tribunal calls for interference ?” - 11 - Point no.1 :
14. In claim petition as well as in deposition claimants
stated that at 10:30 hours on 23.02.2020 when Smt.Padmavati was pillion rider on motorcycle ridden by Sri Sanjay on Vijayapur-Solapur road, driver of NEKRTC Bus drove it in rash and negligent manner, dashed to motorcycle and caused accident. To substantiate actionable claim against NEKRTC, claimants are relied upon police investigation records. Ex.P1-
FIR, Ex.P.2-complaint, Ex.P.4-spot panchanama, Ex.P.8- charge-sheet and Ex.P.10 and 11 - Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report which would implicate driver of Bus for causing accident. No charge-sheet is filed against rider of motorcycle. Though learned counsel for NEKRTC sought to contend that rider of motorcycle tried to over take Bus and dashed against Bus, damages sustained by motorcycle on its front side would not fall in line with such contention. Admittedly, both vehicles were proceeding in same direction. Since Bus is a heavy vehicle, mere absence of damages to front side of Bus would not establish negligence against rider of motorcycle.
- 12 -
15. Contrary to record, RW.1-driver of Bus denied
suggestion that charge-sheet was only against him. No other material is placed to contradict police investigation records. In absence of examination of any eyewitness or passenger of Bus, reliance placed by tribunal on police investigation records to hold negligence against driver of NEKRTC Bus would not call for interference. Challenge by NEKRTC on negligence is hyper- technical and cantankerous. Point no.1 is held in affirmative.
Point no.2 :
16. On quantum, it is alleged by NEKRTC that on
account of death of Smt.Padmavati, husband and children had filed claim petition. Though they would not be entitled for compensation. Same would not sustain as all legal heirs are entitled to claim petition. Said ground of challenge would also require to be rejected.
17. Insofar as appeal for enhancement, claimants in
MVC no.51/2021 stated that deceased-Padmavati was earning `20,000/- as vegetable vendor, tribunal assessed her monthly income at `11,000/- per annum notionally. But notional income for said period was `13,750/-. Therefore, same has to be - 13 - considered. As per decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), future prospects required to be added. Since deceased was determined as 45 years of age and self-employed, future prospects at 25% has to be added, deduction towards personal expenses would be at 1/4th. Thus, computation towards loss of dependency would be: (`13,750/- + 25%) x 3/4th x 12 x 14 = `21,65,520/-.
18. Claimants are husband and children of deceased. As
per decision in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors.2 all of them are entitled for `40,000/- each towards loss of spousal consortium and parental consortium i.e., `1,60,000/-, apart from, `15,000/- towards loss of estate and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in common. As per decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) there has to be addition of 10% to award under conventional heads for every three years. Since more than six years have elapsed after rendering said decision, claimants would be entitled for addition of 20% to award under conventional heads. Thus total compensation would be:
(2018) 18 SCC 130 - 14 -
1. Loss of dependency `21,65,520/-
2. Loss of Consortium (`40,000/- x 4) + 20% `1,92,000/-
3. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses `36,000/- Total `23,93,520/-
19. Insofar as claimants in MVC no.50/2021 stated that
deceased-Sanjay was earning `20,000/- as vegetable vendor, tribunal assessed his monthly income at `11,000/- notionally. But notional income for said period was `13,750/-. Therefore, same has to be considered. As per decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), future prospects required to be added. Since age of deceased was determined as 27 years and self-employed, future prospects at 40% has to be added. Deduction towards personal expenses at 50% by tribunal would be justified. Thus, computation towards loss of dependency would be as follows :
(`13,750/- + 40%) x 50% x 12 x 17 = 19,63,500/-.
20. Claimants are mother and sister of deceased.
Tribunal has held that claimant no.2 was married sister and therefore she is not dependent on deceased. Therefore, only claimant no.1 would be entitled to `40,000/- towards parental consortium as per decision in Magma’s case (supra), apart - 15 -
from, `15,000/- towards loss of estate and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses, in common. As per decision in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) there has to be addition of 10% to award under conventional heads for every three years. Since more than six years have elapsed after rendering said decision, claimants would be entitled for addition of 20% to award under conventional heads. Tribunal also erred in mentioning only compensation awarded towards loss of dependency, despite assessing amounts under conventional heads. Said error also requires to be rectified. Thus total compensation would be:
1. Loss of dependency `19,63,500/-
2. Loss of Consortium (`40,000/-) + 20% `48,000/-
3. Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses `36,000/- Total `20,47,500/- Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative. Hence, following :
ORDER
(i) MFAs no.200623/2022 and 200684/2022 filed by NEKRTC are dismissed with cost of `10,000/- each payable to claimants. - 16 -
(ii) Amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to tribunal, for disbursement.
(iii) Claimants’ appeals in MFAs no.202660/2022 and
award dated 12.10.2021 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura, in MVCs no.51 and 50 of 2021, are modified. Compensation in MVC no.51/2021 is enhanced to `23,93,520/- as against `14,56,000/-. Claimants would be entitled same with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit.
(iv) Likewise, Compensation in MVC no.50/2021 is
enhanced to of `20,47,500/- as against `11,22,000/- awarded by tribunal. Claimant no.1- mother is held entitled same with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit.
(v) NEKRTC to deposit cost and balance compensation within eight weeks. - 17 -
(vi) On deposit, conditions about apportionment, deposit and release as per tribunal award shall apply proportionately to enhanced compensation. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB/SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7