Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Manager

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2025MFA/6671/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals over a fatal road accident between a KSRTC bus and a car. The High Court affirmed 50:50 liability split between KSRTC and the insurer using res ipsa loquitur and enhanced compensation across all claim petitions using updated notional income and conventional heads.

What did the court decide?

Claimant appeals allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.3,53,000/-, Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.76,000/- respectively with 6% interest; KSRTC appeals dismissed.

The Managing Director Vs Manager — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6671 OF 2012 C/W

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4790 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5509 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6673 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6674 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6877 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6876 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6672 OF 2012

¶10

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

IN MFA No.6671/2012

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALOORU - 560 027 NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA. BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. F. S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

MANAGER BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034 TAMIL NADU.

¶20

SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶21

KUM. AMULYA D/O. N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶22

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33, 13 CROSS, AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶23

SRI MALLESH S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A # C-11, PLANT QUARTERS KPCL, YALAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. T. N. GOPAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; R-3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-2)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6401 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, 22^ND ACMM, 24^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.85,000/-

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS ACTUAL DEPOSIT AND ETC.,

¶31

IN MFA NO.4790/2012

¶32

BETWEEN:

¶33

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.1/82 MANJAMMA COMPLEX METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU - 641 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT I CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE & BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE BENGALURU - 560 002 BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT ( CLAIMS)

¶34

...APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SMT. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶38

KUMARI AMOOLYA

¶39

D/O. N.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1

¶40

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33 13TH B CROSS AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU -560 079.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; R-2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-1; SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶47

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6399 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,39,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT AND ETC.,

¶48

IN MFA NO.5509/2012

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶51

KUMARI AMULYA D/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

¶52

2^ND APPELLANT IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER i.e., 1^ST APPELLANT,

¶53

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33 13^TH B CROSS AGRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU -560 079.

¶56

...APPELLANTS

¶57

(BY SRI. T. N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶58

AND:

¶59

MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶60

MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034.

¶61

...RESPONDENTS

¶62

(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶63

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6399 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, 22ND ACMM, 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

IN MFA NO.6673/2012

¶68

BETWEEN:

¶69

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K. H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶70

...APPELLANT

¶71

(BY SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶72

AND:

¶73

MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU- 641 034.

¶74

SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶75

KUM AMULYA D/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS REPRESENTED BY R-2-MOTHER)

¶76

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NO.33, 13^TH CROSS, AGRAHAR DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶77

...RESPONDENTS

¶78

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3; R-3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-2)

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6399 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, 22ND ACMM, 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,39,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS ACTUAL DEPOSIT AND ETC.,

¶83

IN MFA NO.6674/2012

¶84

BETWEEN:

¶85

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶86

...APPELLANT

¶87

(BY SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶88

AND:

¶89

MANAGER, BAJAJ ALIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE TAMILNADU- 641 034.

¶90

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

SRI ANIL KUMAR N. S/O. G. A. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O #10, ANJANADRI NILAYA 2ND CROSS, CHIKKABIDARAKALLU BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶93

SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NO. 33, 13 CROSS AGRAHARADASARAHALLI BENGALURU.

¶94

...RESPONDENTS

¶95

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED 20/02/2015 NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;

¶96

SRI. T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶97

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6402/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ACMM & 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.16,900/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT AND ETC.,

¶98

IN MFA NO.6877/2012

¶99

BETWEEN:

¶100

SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶101

KUMARI AMULYA D/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ,

¶102

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER I.E. 1ST APPELLANT

¶106

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.33, 13^TH B. CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶107

...APPELLANTS

¶108

(BY SRI T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶109

AND:

¶110

MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶111

MANAGER

¶112

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶113

NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034.

¶114

SRI. N. MALLESHA S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.C-11, D.G. QUARTERS, KPCL YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶115

...RESPONDENTS

¶116

(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

¶117

SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

¶118

SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶119

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6401 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII

¶120

10 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶124

IN MFA No.6876/2012:

¶125

BETWEEN:

¶126

SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. LATE N. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, 13^TH B CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079

¶127

…APPELLANT

¶128

(BY SRI. T. N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶129

AND:

¶130

MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560 027.

¶131

MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX, METTUPALYAM ROAD, THUDIYALUR, COIMBATORE - 641 034.

¶132

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶133

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6400 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII

¶134

11 -

¶135

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

A.C.M.M. AND XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

¶138

IN MFA NO.6672/2012

¶139

BETWEEN:

¶140

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶141

...APPELLANT

¶142

(BY SRI F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE)

¶143

AND:

¶144

MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.1/82, MANJAMMA COMPLEX METTUPALYA ROAD, THUDIYALUR COIMBATORE TAMILNADU-641 034.

¶145

SMT. R. ROOPA W/O. N. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS NO 3, 13TH B CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-79.

¶146

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI T.N. GOPALA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;)

¶147

12 -

¶148

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6400 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND A.C.M.M. AND 24TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.64,000/AND ETC.

¶151

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

¶152

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶153

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶154

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

¶155

As these appeals are arising out of same accident,

¶156

they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶157

MFA.No.4790/2012 is filed by the appellant -

¶158

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., and MFA.No.6673/2012 is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "the KSRTC") on the grounds of negligence and quantum of compensation, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor

¶159

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

Accident Claims Tribunal, XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MVC.No.6399/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.5509/2012 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of

¶162

compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6399/ 2009 dated 17.03.2012.

¶163

MFA.No.6671/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the

¶164

ground of negligence and quantum of compensation, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.6877/2012 is filed by the appellants/claimants

¶165

seeking for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/ 2009 dated 17.03.2012.

¶166

MFA.No.6672/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the

¶167

grounds of negligence and quantum of compensation, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6400/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas

¶168

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶169

HC-KAR

¶170

MFA.No.6876/2012 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6400/ 2009 dated 17.03.2012.

¶171

MFA.No.6674/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the ground of negligence being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6402/2009 dated 17.03.2012.

¶172

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

¶173

are referred to as they were arrayed in the claim petitions before the Tribunal.

¶174

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶175

On 20.02.2009 at about 4.15 p.m., one N.Nagaraj

¶176

(hereinafter referred to as the deceased MVC.No.6399/2009) was driving a TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-02-D-8483 and one

¶177

Ankajamma (hereinafter referred to as deceased - MVC.No.6401/2009), claimant Nos.1 and 2 of

¶178

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶179

HC-KAR

¶180

MVC.No.6399/2009 and Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred

¶181

to as injured - MVC.No.6402/2009) were traveling as the passengers in the said Car. When the Car was proceeding on NH-48, Bengaluru - Hassan road, i.e., from Bengaluru

¶182

to Lakshmipura near Belur, the driver of a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-18-F-218 came from the opposite direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came to the extreme right and dashed to the Car, due to the said impact Nagaraj died on the spot, and Ankajamma, who was grievously injured, succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. Further, claimant No.1, Smt. R.Roopa and claimant No.2, Kum. Amulya of MVC.No.6399/2009 and Anil Kumar of MVC.No.6402/2009 sustained grievous injures and underwent treatment at A.C. Giri Hospital and NIMHANS. This led to registration of

¶183

FIR and investigation. Hence, claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation under various heads.

¶184

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶185

HC-KAR

¶186

Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the

¶187

appellant / Insurance Company vehemently contended that the accident occurred on 20.02.2009 and the vehicles involved in the accident are TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-02-D-8483 and the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-18-F-218. The Car was driven by one Nagaraj. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the Car driver and the Bus driver. The Car driver, deceased Nagaraj, was held responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%. In view of this finding, the appellant-insurer is not liable to pay compensation for the death of Nagaraj. The Tribunal's direction fastening 50% liability on the Insurance Company towards the death of Nagaraj is erroneous. Since the deceased was himself responsible for causing the accident to the extent of 50%, the claimants are not

¶188

entitled to any compensation. Further, the deceased was neither a paid driver nor a third party. Hence, the

¶189

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶190

HC-KAR

¶191

judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Hence,

¶192

she prayed to allow her appeal.

¶193

Sri. F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for the

¶194

Corporation, vehemently contended that the Tribunal wrongly fastened the liability on both the Corporation and the Insurance Company in the ratio of 50:50. The Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability entirely on the driver of

¶195

the Car. The Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence led by the respondent and the documents produced as per Exs.R1 and R2. The Tribunal awarded high and exorbitant compensation and it requires

¶196

reduction. The Tribunal wrongly held that the Bus was proceeding on the extreme right side of the road, in fact, the right wheels of the Bus were stationed on the mud road (foot path). The sketch shows the road was 24 feet wide, which clearly establishes that the Car driver was at fault. Hence, he prayed to allow appeals filed by the KSRTC.

¶197

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶198

HC-KAR

¶199

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. The accident is of the year 2009. However, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased Nagaraj (MVC.No.6399/2009) at only Rs.3,500/- per month, which ought to have been reassessed at Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation to the claimants in MVC.No.6401/2009 and MVC.No.6400/2009. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the conventional heads. Hence, he prayed to allow his appeal.

¶200

Having heard learned counsel for the parties

¶201

and on perusal of the appeal memo including original records of the Tribunal, the points that would arise for our consideration in these appeals are:

¶202

Whether the Insurance Company has made out sufficient grounds to establish that the accident in question occurred solely due to the negligence of the Car

¶203

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶204

HC-KAR

¶205

driver/deceased Nagaraj, or whether negligence is also attributable to the KSRTC Bus driver?

¶206

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions is just and reasonable, or does it call for enhancement or reduction?

¶207

To prove their claim, the claimants in MVC.No.6399/2009 examined one of the claimants as PW.1 and relied upon Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 – Charge sheet, Ex.P3 – P.M.Report and Ex.P4 – IMV Report, which clearly demonstrates that the accident has occurred due to the fault of both the Bus driver and the Car driver. Admittedly, neither the Insurance Company nor KSRTC challenged column No.17 of the charge sheet. Therefore, considering the nature of accident and applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the Tribunal has rightly saddled liability on the Insurance Company and the Corporation in the ratio of 50:50, which is fair and reasonable, does not call for any interference.

¶208

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶209

HC-KAR

¶210

In MVC.6399/2009 (deceased N.Nagaraj):

¶211

MFA.No.4790/2012 is filed by the appellant -

¶212

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., and MFA.No.6673/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on the grounds of negligence and quantum of compensation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6399/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.5509/2012 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6399/ 2009.

¶213

The claimants have contended that claimant No.1, Smt. Roopa, is the wife of deceased Nagaraj and claimant No.2 Kum. Amulya is the daughter of deceased Nagaraj. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 41 years and he was running the Amulya Tours and Travels business and earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/p.m. But, to corroborate the same, the claimants have not

¶214

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶215

HC-KAR

¶216

furnished any other documents, but the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased Nagaraj at Rs.3,500/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2009. Taking note of the Circular issued by ‘Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’ as well as ‘High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru’, we assess the notional income of the deceased Nagaraj at Rs.5,000/- p.m. Admittedly, the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance

¶217

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the age group of deceased, the claimants are entitled for future prospects. Thus, we are adding 25% future prospects to the income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.6,250/- (5000 + 25%). There are two dependants of the deceased, hence, 1/3^rd deduction has to be taken into consideration. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,

¶218

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶219

HC-KAR

¶220

the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘14’. Thus, the compensation under the head ‘ loss of dependency’ is re-assessed as under:

¶221

5000 + 25% = 6250 x 12 x 14 x 2/3^rd =

¶222

Rs.7,00,000/-

¶223

The Tribunal has committed an error by

¶224

awarding meagre compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi (Supra) , the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/each, which comes to Rs.80,000/- under the head ‘ loss

¶225

of consortium ’.

¶226

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.10,000/- towards ‘funeral and transportation charges’, which is meagre one. We deem it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards ‘ loss of

¶227

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶228

HC-KAR

¶229

estate ’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘ funeral and

¶230

transportation expenses ’.

¶231

Thus, in all claimants are entitled for modified

¶232

compensation as under:

¶233

	HEADS	Amount (in Rs.)
1	Loss of dependency	7,00,000.00
2	Loss of estate	15,000.00
3	Loss of Consortium	80,000.00
4	Funeral expenses	15,000.00
	Total	8,10,000.00
	Compensation awarded bythe Tribunal	4,57,000.00
	Enhanced compensation	3,53,000.00

¶234

Hence, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its date of realization, as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at

¶235

4,57,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced

¶236

compensation of Rs.3,53,000/- .

¶237

24 -

¶238

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶239

HC-KAR

¶240

MVC.No.6401/2009 (Deceased Ankajamma):

¶241

MFA.No.6671/2012 is filed by the KSRTC on

¶242

the ground of negligence and quantum of compensation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/2009, whereas

¶243

MFA.No.6877/2012 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ankajamma for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6401/2009. Since we arrived at a conclusion that, the accident occurred due to negligent act

¶244

of the driver of KSRTC bus and driver of Car, both the KSRTC and Insurer of Car are liable to pay compensation equally. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, claimant No.1 Smt. Roopa is daughter-in-law and claimant No.2 is the granddaughter of deceased Ankajamma. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased Ankajamma was 65 years and she was earning Rs.4,000 p.m. from milk vending business and also drawing the pension of Rs.700/- p.m.

¶245

25 -

¶246

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶247

HC-KAR

¶248

Further the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased Ankajamma at Rs.3,000/- p.m. In the absence of proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by 'Karnataka State Legal Services Authority' and

¶249

'High Court Legal Services Authority', Bengaluru, we assess the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month and the annual income comes to Rs.60,000/-. Out of which 1/4^th of her annual income has to be taken into consideration for awarding the compensation under the head 'loss of estate' . As compensation for loss of estate is distinct from compensation for loss of dependency, which focuses on the financial support the deceased provided to their family.

¶250

Loss of estate compensates for the financial losses incurred by the deceased's estate, such as lost savings or diminished property value, which are recoverable by the estate itself rather than the dependents. The key difference is that dependency claims are for financial support lost by family members who relied

¶251

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶252

HC-KAR

¶253

on the deceased, while estate claims are for the estate's general loss of assets and savings. Accordingly, different calculations apply to the multiplicand (the basis of the financial loss) in each case. A portion of the deceased's income is considered to annual contribution, which is then multiplied by an appropriate multiplier to determine the total 'loss of dependency'.

¶254

Loss of estate refers to the damages that the estate could have claimed had the deceased been alive. This includes the deceased’s savings, lost property, and other assets that would have accrued to the estate. The calculation is based on the deceased's annual savings, not the total contribution to family expenses. These annual savings are multiplied by an appropriate multiplier to determine the total value of the loss to the estate. While dependency claims are made by the dependents of the deceased, estate claims are made by the estate itself. Dependency relates to the financial loss suffered by the family, whereas estate relates to the general financial loss

¶255

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶256

HC-KAR

¶257

to the deceased's assets. Thus, the multiplicand for dependency is the deceased’s contribution to the family, while for estate it is the deceased’s annual savings. Hence, in this case, 'loss of estate' is taken into consideration

¶258

instead of 'loss of dependency'.

¶259

There are three dependants to the deceased. The deceased was aged about 65 years, thus, multiplier applicable is '5'. Hence, 'loss of estate' is calculated as under:

¶260

5000 x 12 x 5 x 1/4^th = Rs.75,000/-

¶261

The Tribunal has committed an error by not awarding compensation under conventional heads. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and National Insurance Company Limited

¶262

vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , claimant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for Rs.40,000/-

¶263

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶264

HC-KAR

¶265

each, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- under the head

¶266

'loss of consortium' .

¶267

The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards ‘funeral and transportation charges’, which is meagre one.

¶268

We deem it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards ‘ funeral and transportation expenses ’ and

¶269

Rs.15,000/- towards ‘ loss of love and affection .

¶270

Thus, in all, claimants are entitled to modified

¶271

compensation as under:

¶272

	HEADS	Amount (in Rs.)
1	Loss of estate	75,000.00
2	Loss of Consortium	1,20,000.00
3	Loss of love and affection	15,000.00
4	Funeral and transportation charges	15,000.00
	Total	2,25,000.00
	Compensation awarded bythe Tribunal	85,000.00
	Enhanced compensation	1,40,000.00

¶273

Hence, the claimants are entitled for total

¶274

compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its date of realization

¶275

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶276

HC-KAR

¶277

as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.85,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- .

¶278

MVC.No.6400/2009 (Smt. Roopa - injured)

¶279

MFA.No.6672/2012 is filed by the Corporation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6400/2009 dated 17.03.2012, whereas MFA.No.6876/2012 is filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.6400/ 2009.

¶280

The claimant Smt. Roopa was aged about 29 years at the time of accident and she was working as Therapist in Jindal Nature Centre, Bengaluru and was drawing the salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. But, she has not furnished any document to substantiate the same. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant - Smt. Roopa at

¶281

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶282

HC-KAR

¶283

Rs.3,000/- per month, which is on lower side. The accident is of the year 2009. Taking note of the Circular issued by the 'Karnataka State Legal Services Authority' as well as 'High Court Legal Services Committee', Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to re-assess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶284

The claimant was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident. As per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance

¶285

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is '17'. Thus, the compensation under the head 'loss of future earning capacity ' is re-assessed as under:

¶286

5000 x 12 x 17 x 5% = Rs.51,000/-

¶287

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶288

HC-KAR

¶289

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶290

Rs.12,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' , which needs to be enhanced. We are granting compensation of Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.12,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings'.

¶291

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶292

Rs.14,000/- towards 'medical expenses' , which is fair and reasonable, does not call for any interference.

¶293

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶294

Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' , which is fair and reasonable one, does not call of interference.

¶295

The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,000/-

¶296

towards 'loss of income during the period of treatment'. Considering the head injury suffered by the claimant and permanent disability at 5%, she was under rest and has taken treatment for a period of two months. Therefore, taking notional income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- a sum of Rs.10,000/- (5000 x 2) is awarded under the

¶297

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶298

HC-KAR

¶299

head of 'loss of income during the period of

¶300

treatment' .

¶301

Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following modified compensation:

¶302

HEADS	Amount (in Rs.)
Towards pain and sufferings	40,000.00
Medical expenses	14,000.00
Loss of amenities	25,000.00
Towards loss of future earning capacity	51,000.00
Loss of income during laid up period	10,000.00
Total	1,40,000.00
Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	64,000.00
Enhanced compensation	76,000.00

¶303

Hence, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its date of realization, as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.64,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhanced

¶304

compensation of Rs.76,000/- .

¶305

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶306

HC-KAR

¶307

In the result, we pass the following:

¶308

ORDER

¶309

i) MFA.No.5509/2012 and MFA.No.4790/2012 are allowed-in-part and MFA.No. 6673/2012 is dismissed .

¶310

ii) MFA.No.6671/2012 is dismissed and MFA.No.6877/2012 is allowed-in-part .

¶311

iii) MFA.No.6672/2012 is dismissed and MFA.No.6876/2012 is allowed-in-part .

¶312

iv) In view of the fixing liability on both Insurance Company and KSRTC at the ratio of 50:50, the appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA.No.6674/2012 is dismissed .

¶313

v) The judgment and award dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in MVC.No.6399/2009, MVC.No.6401/2009 and MVC.No.6400/2009 is modified to the extent stated herein above.

¶314

vi) The claimants in MFA.No.5509/2012 (deceased Nagaraj - MVC.No.6399/2009) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- with

¶315

34 -

¶316

NC: 2025:KHC:36858-DB MFA No. 6671 of 2012 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶317

HC-KAR

¶318

interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.3,53,000/-.

¶319

vii) The claimants in MFA.No.6877/2012 (deceased Ankajamma - MVC.No.6401/2009) are entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.1,40,000/-.

¶320

viii) The claimant in MFA.No.6876/2012 (injured Smt. Roopa - MVC.No.6400/2009) is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.76,000/-.

¶321

ix) As it is held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both Car and KSRTC at the ratio of 50:50, the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and KSRTC are directed to pay 50% of the compensation amount with interest at 6% per annum within

¶322