Smt Anjalamma Vs Dharmaraj K

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 882/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDITIONAL MACT-11, BHADRAVATHI,

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶36

3 -

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

IN MFA NO. 4820/2020

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶42

...APPELLANT

¶43

(BY MS. PRATHIKSHA JAIN, ADVOCATE AND MS. DHANYASHREE PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

SMT. ANJALAMMA, W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶46

SMT. DIVYASHREE R., D/O LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶47

SRI. RAKESH R., S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶48

RESPONDENT NO.1-3 ARE R/AT NO.769, BESIDE SRI RAM TEMPLE, GOWLIGARA BEEDI CROSS, 12^TH CROSS, B.H.ROAD, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301.

¶49

DHARMARAJ.K S/O KRISHNASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶50

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

KSRTC BUS DRIVER, R/O KANAKATTE VILLAGE, BHADRA COLONY POST, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

¶53

M/S. UNIVERSAL SOMPO INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI, BRANCH OFFICE AT OPP. VINAYAKA TALKIES, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 203.

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI. Y.N.PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3; SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R4 - DHARMARAJ K., SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 10.03.2021, R2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY)

¶56

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.03.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.882/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDITIONAL MACT-11, BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,84,400/WITH INTEREST AT 7 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶57

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶59

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶60

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶63

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T )

¶64

MFA No.4820/2020 is filed by the appellant - Corporation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT - II, Bhadravathi in MVC.No.882/2017 dated 09.03.2020 on the ground of quantum and liability, whereas, MFA.No.4015/2024 is filed by the appellants -claimants for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶66

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2017 at about 8:00 a.m. the deceased Venkatesha

¶67

Babu was proceeding towards Poornapragna School in his autorickshaw, when he reached Kadadakatte Side main road, B.H.Road, Bhadravathi, the driver of the KSRTC bus

¶68

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

bearing No.KA-17/F/1597 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the autorickshaw driven by the deceased Venkatesh Babu. Due to the impact, he sustained crush injury and died at the spot. This led to registration of FIR and investigation.

¶71

Heard Sri S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Sri Pavan Kumar Y N., learned counsel for the claimants, and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶72

Learned counsel for the Corporation in MFA.No.4820/2020 vehemently contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw - Venkatesh babu and not because of the driver of the KSRTC Bus. Further, as on the date of the accident, the driver of the autorickshaw was not holding valid driving license and he came in a rash and negligent manner towards the right side of the road and dashed

¶73

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

against the bus. Therefore, the liability has to be fastened on the Insurer of the autorickshaw. Further, the Tribunal has awarded fair and reasonable compensation under other convention heads and hence, he prayed to allow his appeal.

¶76

Per contra , Sri. Lingaraju K.R., learned counsel for the respondents - claimants in MFA. No.4820/2020 and appellant - claimants in MFA.No.4015/2024 contended that, the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. The accident is of the year 2017. As per the chart issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, it would be appropriate to reassess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month and the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under conventional heads more particularly under the head 'Loss of Consortium'. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶77

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 - Insurance Company vehemently contended that as per the

¶78

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

charge sheet material, as on the date of the accident Venkatesh Babu, was driving the autorickshaw bearing No.KA-14/B/4350 which belongs to claimant No.3. However, the accident occurred when the autorickshaw was in front of the poornapragna school on B.H.Road. The driver of the KSRTC came from opposite direction and hit the autorickshaw, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. Thus, the accident has taken place due to the fault of the driver of the bus. Hence, he prays for disposal of the appeals in accordance with law.

¶81

We have perused the impugned judgment and

¶82

award and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arises for our consideration in these appeals are:

¶83

1. Whether the Tribunal has rightly justified in fastening the entire liability on the appellant - Corporation?

¶84

2. Whether the quantum of

¶85

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

¶86

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or reduction?

¶89

Insofar as contributory negligence is concerned,

¶90

from perusal of oral and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 - Accident intimation letter, Ex.P2 - FIR and complaint and Ex.P3 - Spot Mahazar and Ex.R1 - copy of the charge sheet, it appears that as on the date of the accident, the drivers of the bus and the autorickshaw both came to their extreme right side cross road of the divider line. hence, the accident occurred.

¶91

As per Ex.R1 - charge sheet, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against both the deceased as well as the driver of the KSRTC under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. But the Tribunal has saddled the entire liability on the driver of the bus.

¶92

On perusal of spot panchama sketch and charge sheet it depicts that the driver of the autorickshaw also came towards the extreme right side and it also appears that the accident occurred towards extreme right

¶93

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

side of the road. Thus, it is clear that the driver of the bus came in a higher speed and dashed the autorickshaw. However, driver of the bus could have applied brake as it is heavy motor vehicle. Hence, it is a fit case warranting interference of this Court on saddling liability on the offending vehicle i.e, KSRTC bus to an extent of 70% and 30% on the part of the deceased Venkatesh. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal as regards to contributory negligence is modified to that extent.

¶96

Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month which is on meager side.

¶97

The accident is of the year 2017. No documentary evidence is placed with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to reassess

¶98

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

the income of the deceased at Rs.11,000/- per month. The

¶101

deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. The Insurance Company has not disputed this aspect. As per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

¶102

Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is '18'. The deceased – Venkatesh died bachelor living behind his mother, sister and brother. Therefore, it is appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal expenses.

¶103

Further, the Tribunal has rightly considered future prospects at 40% in view of the ratio laid down in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Since the deceased was self -employed and below the age of 25 years, the ‘ loss of dependency’ is worked out as under:

¶104

Rs.11,000 + Rs.4,400(40%) = Rs.15,400/-

¶105

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

Rs.15,400 – Rs.7,700(50%) = Rs.7,700/-

¶108

Rs.7,700 x 12 x 18 = Rs.16,63,200/- as against Rs.18,14,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶109

The Tribunal has committed an error in not

¶110

awarding fair compensation under conventional heads. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRURAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND

¶111

OTHERS reported in 2017(16) SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled towards ‘loss of consortium’ at Rs.40,000/each which comes to the total of Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- for ‘funeral expenses’.

¶112

Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:

¶113

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

HEADS	Rs.
Loss of dependency	16,63,200.00
Loss of consortium	1,20,000.00
Funeral expenses	15,000.00
Loss of estate	15,000.00
TOTAL	18,13,200.00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	18,84,400.00
REDUCED COMPENSATION	71,200.00

¶116

In the result, we pass the following:

¶117

O R D E R

¶118

i. The appeal filed by corporation is allowed-in-part. **and the appeal filed by claimants is dismissed.

¶119

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.18,13,200 /- as against Rs.18,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till

¶120

the date of its realization.

¶121

**Corrected vide Chamber order dated:16.02.2026.

¶122

14 -

¶123

NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

iii. The appellant - Corporation is liable to pay 70% of

¶126

the total compensation and directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount * including interest.

¶127

iv. The appellant – Corporation * shall deposit entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶128

v. Apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶129

vi. Draw modified award accordingly.

¶130

vii. It is made clear that the claimants are not entitled to interest for 661 days delay period in preferring the appeal.

¶131

Deleted vide Chambers Order dated 26/12/2025.

¶132

15 -

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC:35045-DB MFA No. 4015 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 4820 of 2020

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment

¶136

to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith.

¶137

In view of the disposal of * *these appeals , all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off, as they do not survive for any consideration.

¶138

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶139

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶140

RKA

¶141

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

¶142

**Corrected vide Chamber order dated:16.02.2026.

Smt Anjalamma v. Dharmaraj K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anjalamma v. Dharmaraj K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shristi Pandey Vs the State of Karnataka

G Bhaskar Prabhu Vs Karnataka Stae Khadi and Village Industris Board

Mukul Pravin Khamayacha Vs the State of Karnataka

Madhusudhan Gupta Vs Ganavi

Mr Krishnappa @ Krishna Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt. Jayamala Vs the State of Karnataka