Karnataka High Court
MFA/3223/2024 of DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs SAVITHA on 15 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010235502024 NC: 2026:KHC:49987-DB MFA No. 3223 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3223 OF 2024 (MV-D)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3223 OF 2024
(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
KSRTC, (INTERNAL INSURANCE)
CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION
CHAMARAJANAGARA
TALUK & DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
CENTRAL OFFICES, KSRTC
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 027.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARUNA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SAVITHA
W/O LATE RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
KUM. RANJITHA
D/O LATE RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT #2005,
BEHIND MASJEED,
CHAMALAPURA STREET
6TH WARD, NANJANGUD TOWN
MYSURU DISTRICT 571 301.
3.
MAHADEVASWAMY M
S/O MAHADEVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 158/2,
BHOGAIAHNAHUNDI VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT 571 109.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
MAHADEVASWAMY R3 SD/-)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.06.12.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1423/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC,
NANJANGUD,
AWARDING
COMPENSATION
OF
RS.28,16,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Divisional Manager, KSRTC, assailing the impugned judgment and award passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nanjangud in MVC No.1423/2019.
2. Although various grounds have been raised in the appeal memo including the contention that the deceased was not wearing helmet and the rider was not having Driving Licence to drive the motor vehicle at the time of accident and therefore they have contributed to the accident, nevertheless, learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that this Court may consider the contention of the appellants that the Tribunal has erred in deducting only 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
HC-KAR
Sarla Verma and others .v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another – (2009) 6 SCC 121, has clearly held that 50% of the income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses, if the deceased is a bachelor.
3. We have gone through the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the celebrated case of Sarla Verma, where many of the components have been standardized for the purpose of determining the compensation in the motor vehicle accident cases, has also laid down the guidelines, while raising the issue of “deduction for personal and living expenses”, in paragraphs No.25 and 26 of the judgment. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is a practice of deducting towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income if the deceased was married, one half (50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor, nevertheless it is also clearly
HC-KAR
held that such percentage of deduction is not an inflexible rule and offers merely a guideline.
4. We find from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has furnished reasons for considering 1/3rd deduction, although the deceased was a bachelor. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased. It has come on record that the father of the deceased and petitioner No.2 had died much earlier and therefore petitioner No.2, although the sister of the deceased was fully dependent on the brother, who died in the accident. Therefore, there is sufficient reasons for the Tribunal considering 1/3rd deduction instead of 50% deduction.
5. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the appeal.
HC-KAR
6. The amount deposited by the appellant- insurance company shall stand transferred to the Tribunal.
Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE
Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
KLY CT: JL