Lakshmidevi Vs the Depo Manager

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.690/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

IN MFA NO. 7228/2023

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

THE DEPO MANAGER KSRTC TUMKURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADV.)

¶34

AND:

¶35

LAKSHMIDEVI W/O GANGAPPA @ GANGADHARA @ GANGARAJU @ GANGA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶36

DHARSHAN H G S/O GANGAPPA @ GANGADHARA @ GANGARAJU @ GANGA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, MINOR

¶37

SHIRISHA H G S/O GANGAPPA @ GANGADHARA @ GANGARAJU @ GANGA, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, MINOR

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶39

3 -

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER LAKSHMIDEVI,

¶42

ALL ARE R/O NITHRAHALLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, PRESENT R/OF HANUMANTHAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK.

¶43

...RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. M. B. RYAKHA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3 (R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1))

¶45

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.690/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 23,40,749/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶46

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

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶49

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶50

The claimants as well as the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’) are in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2023 in MVC No.690/2021 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and AMACT, Tumakuru (for short

¶51

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

‘Tribunal’). The claimants-appellants in MFA No.

¶54

3728/2025 are before this Court, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal with a prayer to enhance the same. Whereas, the Corporation is in appeal in MFA No. 7228/2023 questioning the negligence attributed to the owner of its vehicle as well as questioning the compensation granted to the claimants.

¶55

The brief facts of the case are that the wife, minor son and minor daughter of the deceased, i.e. claimants herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the accidental death of

¶56

Sri Gangappa @ Gangadhara @ Gangaraju @ Ganga (husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No. 2 and 3), involving KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No. KA-18-F0863 in front of Ananda Bihari Hotel, NH48, Tumakuru at about 7 p.m. on 09/09/2020. It is submitted that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 34 years, doing

¶57

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

masonry and agriculture work, was hale and healthy, and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m.

¶60

Before the Tribunal, upon issuance of notice, the learned counsel for the Corporation filed their objections to the claim petition, denying the claim petition averments in toto . In support of their claim, claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW1 and an eye witness one Sri. Maranna was examined as PW2, apart from marking Exs.P1 to P16. On behalf of the Corporation, one Sri. V T Shivakumar was examined as RW1 apart from marking Exs.P1 and P2. The tribunal upon examination of the material on record, saddled 80% negligence on the Corporation and saddled 20% negligence on the deceased and quantified total compensation to be Rs.29,25,936/-, 80% of which was awarded to the claimants, i.e. Rs.23,40,749/- , along with interest @6% p.a. under the following heads:-

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Sl. No.	Compensation under the Head	Amount
1.	Loss of dependency Rs.	27,60,936/-
2.	Loss of estate Rs.	16,500/-
3.	Funeral expenses & transportation Rs.	16,500/-
4.	Loss of Consortium Rs.	1,32,000/-
	Total Rs.	29,25,936/-
	80% of Total Compensation Rs.	23,40,749/-

¶64

While coming to the afore-stated conclusion,

¶65

the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.14,500/-, deducted 1/3^rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and adopted the multiplier of 17.

¶66

Heard Sri. M B Ryakha, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri. Samarth Prakash, learned counsel for the Corporation. Perused the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court records, a certified copy of which was produced before this Court.

¶67

Learned counsel for the claimants Sri. M B

¶68

Ryakha would submit that the Tribunal erred in attributing

¶69

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

20% negligence on the deceased as the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and requires enhancement. It is further submitted that, despite producing medical bills to an extent of Rs.91,138/- as per Ex. P13, the Tribunal has failed to award compensation for the medical charges incurred by the claimants for the treatment of the deceased on account of the accidental death. Thus, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the appeal filed by the Corporation be dismissed.

¶72

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Corporation, Sri Samarth Prakash would submit that the Tribunal erred in attributing 80% negligence on the driver of the Corporation bus. It is submitted that, as the deceased jumped over the divider and came onto the Highway, the driver of the Corporation bus had very less time to react and hence, the deceased is solely responsible

¶73

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

for the accident that led to his death. Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that as per the records, the deceased was aged 31 years at the time of death and hence, the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of ‘17’. Thus, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the Corporation be allowed and the appeal filed by the claimants be dismissed.

¶76

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶77

the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal papers including the Trial Court Records, the following points would arise for our consideration:

¶78

i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in attributing 80% negligence on the driver of the Corporation Bus and 20% negligence on the deceased?

¶79

ii. Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper?

¶80

Answer to the above points would be in the

¶81

Affirmative and Negative , respectively for the following

¶82

reasons:

¶83

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

The accident that occurred on 09.09.2020 at about 7 p.m. in front of Ananda Bihari Hotel, NH48, Tumakuru involving KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA 18-F-0863 that led to the accidental death of Sri Gangappa @ Gangadhara @ Gangaraju @Ganga is not in dispute. However, learned counsel for the claimants as well as the Corporation would submit that the Tribunal has erred in attributing negligence to the respective parties. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation bus. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the accident occurred solely due to deceased jumping over the divider and coming onto the Highway.

¶86

PW2, Sri. Maranna, who is an eye witness to the accident has deposed in his Chief Examination that the driver of the Corporation bus has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased which led to multiple injuries caused to the deceased, as a

¶87

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

consequence of which, the deceased succumbed while he was undergoing treatment on 23.10.2020. Nothing to the contrary has come out from the cross examination of PW2.

¶90

Subsequent to the accident, an FIR came to be registered against the driver of the accident, the contents of which has been stated by the deceased himself, would suggest that the driver of the Corporation bus has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased when he jumped the divider and tried to cross the road. The said FIR has culminated in a charge sheet being filed against the driver of the Corporation bus. On perusal of the accident sketch produced at Ex.P9, it could be seen that the driver of the Corporation bus dashed against the deceased right in the middle of the road, which would indicate that the driver of the bus could have avoided the accident or could have steered away from the deceased if the vehicle was being driven slowly. Thus, it cannot be stated that the driver of the Corporation bus is not in the wrong. However, the

¶91

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

deceased, in his statement as annexed to the FIR has himself deposed that he jumped the divider and walked on the highway towards oncoming traffic when the driver of the Corporation bus who was driving rashly and negligently dashed him. Thus, there is some negligence on the part of the deceased as well. In such circumstances, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal insofar as attributing 80% negligence towards the driver of the Corporation bus and 20% negligence towards the deceased.

¶94

With regard to the compensation to be awarded, in the absence of any documentary proof to establish the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.14,500/- as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accidents of the year 2020. Since, all 3 claimants were depending upon the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3^rd towards personal and living income of the deceased and

¶95

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. However, the Tribunal erred in adopting the multiplier of ‘17’. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SARALA VERMA AND ORS. V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier applicable for a deceased aged ‘31’ would be ‘16’. Thus, the multiplier applicable in this case would be ‘16’ rather than ‘17’. On re-assessment of the multiplier applicable, claimants would be entitled to compensation on the head of loss of dependency as follows:

¶98

14,500+(40% of 14,500)–1/3 X16X12= Rs.25,98,400/-

¶99

With regard to the compensation under the conventional heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires no interference. However, as the deceased was an in-patient for 4 days, despite producing medical bills in Ex. P13 to an extent of Rs.91,138/-, the Tribunal has failed to grant compensation for the same. This court does not find any reasons to dispute the

¶100

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

medical bills produced by the claimants. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.91,138/- for Medical Bills produced. As we had held that the deceased is negligent to the extent of 20%, the claimants shall be entitled to 80% of the modified

¶103

compensation as under:

¶104

Sl.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT
No.
1.	Loss of Dependency	Rs. 25,98,400/-
2.	Loss of Consortium(40,000 each plus 10%)	Rs. 1,32,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate(15,000 plus 10%)	Rs. 16,500/-
4.	Funeral Expenses and Transportation Charges (15,000 plus 10%)	Rs. 16,500/-
5.	Compensation for medical bills produced	Rs. 91,138/-
	TOTAL	Rs.28,54,538/-
	80% of the Total Compensation	Rs.22,83,630/-

¶105

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the

¶106

compensation of Rs.22,83,630/- as against Rs.23,40,749/- awarded by the Tribunal, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶107

14 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:15094-DB MFA No. 3728 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 7228 of 2023

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶111

ORDER

¶112

a) MFA No. 3728/2025 filed by the claimants and MFA No. 7228/2023 filed by the Corporation are allowed in part.

¶113

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.22,83,630/- as against Rs.23,40,749/- awarded by the Tribunal

¶114

c) The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

¶115

d) The Corporation shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four

¶116