Smt Sarojamma Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt Sarojamma Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal in MFA No.6572/2023 and cross-objections in MFA Crob.No.20/2024 allowed in part: (a) liability of the appellant-corporation to pay compensation affirmed; (b) matter remanded to the Tribunal to reassess compensation with opportunity to both parties to lead additional evidence on proof of the age of the deceased; (c) both parties to appear before the Tribunal on 25.08.2026 without awaiting court notice; (d) registry to send back trial court records with copy of the judgment; (e)-(f) amount in deposit to be transmitted and kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for one year with auto-renewal instructions; (g) school certificate produced with memo to be returned to counsel for cross-objectors.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC Bus? +1 more

Court's answer

Point No.1 answered: considering all the aspects, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus.

Ratio / Principle

The corporation's contention that the deceased was under intoxication cannot be accepted: Ex.P7 post mortem report does not indicate the deceased having consumed alcohol, and the oral evidence of R.W.1 (the driver, an interested person who had not challenged the charge sheet) cannot be accepted.

Key takeaways

The documents produced in the appeal regarding the age of the deceased (Aadhar card showing date of birth 01.01.1963 i.e. about 57 years; ration card issued 27.11.2015 showing age 52 i.e. about 57 years at accident; school certificate showing date of birth 01.06.1970 i.e. about 50 years) are disputed by the opposite parties; therefore further evidence is required with regard to proof of the age of the deceased, on which future prospects also depends.ratio¶109
Point No.2 answered: the matter requires to be remanded back to the Tribunal for re-assessing the compensation by giving opportunity to both parties to lead further evidence on the proof of the age of the deceased; future prospects, depending on the age of the deceased, are to be considered by the Tribunal.ratio¶115

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles - Death claim - Fall from KSRTC bus - Sole negligence of bus driver affirmed; remand for reassessment of compensation on proof of age of deceased. The KSRTC Corporation appealed (MFA No.6572/2023) against liability and quantum, and claimants cross-objected (MFA Crob.No.20/2024) for enhancement, concerning the death of Thimmegowda who fell from KSRTC bus KA-13/F-2090 on 24.02.2020 and succumbed to injuries. Held: (i) The Tribunal rightly found sole negligence of the KSRTC bus driver - Ex.P6 charge sheet (column 17) records that the driver drove in high speed, rashly and negligently in a curve, due to which the back door opened and the deceased standing on the footboard fell and died; the driver (R.W.1) did not challenge the charge sheet; the plea that the deceased was intoxicated was rejected since Ex.P7 post mortem report does not indicate consumption of alcohol and R.W.1 is an interested witness. (ii) On age: the Tribunal took 50 years from the post mortem report; the Corporation produced Aadhar card (DOB 01.01.1963, i.e. about 57 years) and ration card (issued 27.11.2015 showing age 52, i.e. about 57 years at accident); cross-objectors produced school certificate (DOB 01.06.1970, i.e. about 50 years); these documents being disputed, further evidence is required and future prospects depend on the age of the deceased. Appeal and cross-objections allowed in part: liability affirmed; matter remanded to the Tribunal for reassessment of compensation with opportunity to both parties to lead additional evidence on proof of age; parties to appear on 25.08.2026; amount in deposit to be kept in fixed deposit for one year with auto-renewal. (Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, was pressed by claimants' counsel for 25% future prospects and 10% escalation on conventional heads; those aspects stand remitted to the Tribunal.)

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010505882023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 6572 OF 2023

(MV-D)

C/W

MFA CROSS OBJECTION No. 20 OF 2024 (MV-D)

IN MFA No. 6572/2023

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE MANAGER K.S.R.T.C DEPOT HASSAN HASSAN DIVISION - 573 201. REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 027.

(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

SMT. BINDU T.T. D/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010505882023

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/AT: THENKANAHALLI VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 131.

SMT. KAVITHA W/O. RAGHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE DHARMAPURA HOBLI HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 546.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC No.507/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.16,76,300/OUT OF TOTAL COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF Rs.17,16,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA. CROB No. 20/2024

BETWEEN:

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

SMT. BINDU T T D/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT THENKANAHALLI VILLAGE

3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010505882023

NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK

HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 131.

SMT. KAVITHA W/O RAGHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE DHARAMPAURA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURG DISTRICT – 577 546.

...CROSS OBJECTORS

(BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGER KSRTC DEPOT HASSAN, HASSAN DIVISION.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE – VK NOT FILED)

THIS MFA. CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.1.2023 PASSED IN MVC No.507/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER – MACT AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, J.M.F.C., CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS MFA AND MFA CROB COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010505882023

ORAL JUDGMENT

MFA No.6572 is filed by the KSRTC corporation challenging the liability and quantum of compensation and MFA Crob.No.20/2024 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 11.01.2023 passed in MVC No.507/2021 by Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Channarayapatna.

2. Even though the appeal and cross-objections

are listed today for admission, they are taken up for disposal with the consent of counsels appearing both parties.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 /claimants made a claim petition before the Tribunal praying to award compensation for the death of Thimmegowda (husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos.2 and 3) in a road traffic accident occurred on 24.02.2020 contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010505882023

No.KA-13/F-2090. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, appreciating the evidence on record has assessed the compensation and awarded compensation

under various heads as under:

1	Loss of Spouse Consortium of petitioner No.1	Rs.40,000/-
2	Loss of Parental Consortium of petitioner No.2 and 3 (Rs.40,000/-each)	Rs.80,000/-
3	Funeral Expenses	Rs.18,150/-
4	Loss of estate	Rs.18,150/-
	Total	Rs.17,16,300/-

4. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal has deducted interim compensation paid by the Corporation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in total compensation of Rs.17,16,300/- but while calculating there is calculating mistake wherein the balance amount is mentioned as Rs.16,76,300/- instead of Rs.14,16,300/-. The Tribunal has held that the entire negligence is the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus and saddled liability on the corporation. The corporation

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010505882023

challenged the liability and quantum of compensation in MFA No.6572/2023. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 -claimants have filed MFA Crob.No.20/2024 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant – corporation and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 –claimants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant –corporation would contend that the deceased was under intoxication, he was standing near the door, under intoxication he opened the door of the bus, fell down and died. There is negligence on the part of the deceased. The evidence of R.W.1 clearly indicates the said aspect. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in saddling the liability on the Corporation. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 50 years based on the age mentioned in Post Mortem report –Ex.P7 but Aadhar card and ration card which is produced along the appeal indicates that the date of birth of the deceased is 01.01.1963 and he is aged

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010505882023

about 57 years. Therefore, age of the deceased is to be taken as 57 years and multiplier applicable is 9 and future prospects are at 10%. With these he prays to allow MFA No.6572/2023.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - cross objectors –claimants would contend that charge sheet –Ex.P6 clearly indicate that the driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, in high speed in cross road due to which the door of the bus opened and the deceased was standing on the footboard, fell down and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Ex.P7 post mortem report does not indicate any consumption of alcohol by the deceased. Except the oral statement of R.W.1 driver of the bus, the other materials placed on record does not indicate any consumption of alcohol by the deceased. He further submits by filing memo along with original school certificate indicating the date of birth of the deceased. The date of birth of the deceased as per school certificate is 01.06.1970. As per the same, the age of the

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

8 -

CNR: KAHC010505882023

deceased is 50 years and the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 50 years. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken future prospects at 10%, the deceased is aged 50years, the future prospectus is to be taken at 25%. He further submits that the Tribunal has not taken escalation at 10% on conventional heads since the accident occurred after three years of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors¹ . With these, he prays to allow cross objections and enhancement of compensation.

7. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has

perused the impugned judgment, award and trial Court records.

8. The following points arises for consideration i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due

1 In AIR 2017 SC 5157

9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010505882023

to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC Bus?

ii) In view of documents produced with regard to age of the deceased, whether matter requires to be remanded for leading additional evidence and reassessing compensation?

9. Reasons to Point No.1: The accident occurred

on 24.02.2020 at about 08.30 p.m. when the deceased

was traveling in the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-13/F-2090. The deceased fell down from the bus, sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Ex.P6 is the copy of the charge sheet and in column No.17, it is mentioned that the KSRTC bus driver drove the bus in high speed, rash and negligent in a curve, he took turn of the bus, due to which the back door of the bus opened, the deceased who was standing on the foot

board fell down from the bus, sustained injuries and died on the way to the hospital. R.W.1 is the driver of

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

10 -

CNR: KAHC010505882023

the said bus. R.W.1- driver of the KSRTC bus has not challenged the charge sheet filed against him. The contention of counsel for the appellant –corporation that the deceased was under intoxication, cannot be accepted since Ex.P7 post mortem report does not indicate the deceased having consumed alcohol and therefore, oral evidence of R.W.1 -driver who is the interested person cannot be accepted. Considering all these aspects, The Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

10. Reasons to Point No.2: The Tribunal has

taken the age of the deceased as 50 years based on post mortem report –Ex.P7. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced copy of Aadhar card of the deceased and ration card along with the appeal memo.

The copy of the Aadhar card indicates that the date of birth of the deceased is 01.01.1963. Considering the

11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010505882023

same, the age of the deceased is about 57 years. Copy

of ration card of the deceased was issued on 27.11.2015 and in that the age of the deceased is mentioned as 52 years as on that date and considering the same, as on the date of accident he is aged about 57 years. Learned counsel for respondents –cross objectors submits that the age cannot be calculated based on the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar card. Learned counsel for respondents –cross objectors has produced the original school certificate along with memo and in that the date of the birth of the deceased has been shown as 01.06.1970. Considering the said date of birth, the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident. The documents produced in this appeal, i.e., Aadhar card, ration card and original school certificate are disputed by opposite parties. Therefore, further evidence is required with regard to proof of the

age of the deceased. Considering the same, future prospects is also depending on the age of the deceased

12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010505882023

that is to be considered by the Tribunal. Considering all these aspects, the matter requires to be remanded back to the Tribunal for re-assessing the compensation by giving opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence on the proof of age of the deceased. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.

11. In view of the above, the following

ORDER

i) The appeal filed by the corporation in MFA No.6572/2023 and cross objections filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 -claimants in MFA Crob.No.20/2024 are allowed in part in following terms

a) The liability on the appellant -corporation to pay the compensation is affirmed.

b) The matter is remanded back to Tribunal to reassess the compensation by giving opportunity to the both parties to lead additional evidence with regard to proof of age of the deceased.

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:37400 MFA No. 6572 of 2023 C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2024

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010505882023

c) Both parties are directed appear before the Tribunal on 25.08.2026 without awaiting any Court notice.

d) Registry is directed to send back trial Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith.

e) Office is directed to transmit the amount in –

deposit, deposited by the appellant corporation.

f) The Tribunal shall keep the said amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year with auto renewal instructions.

g) Office is directed to return the school certificate produced with memo to learned counsel for cross objectors.

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 Ct.sm