MFA/1419/2024 of SMT. DEVINDRA BAI Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR on 3 July 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

1. These appeals are against the judgment and award in two separate claim petitions, but these two claim petitions arise out of same accident. MFA.Nos.7871/2023 and 1419/2024 are against the impugned judgment and award in MVC.No.139/2020 and MFA.Nos.8084/2023 and 3409/2024 are against the impugned judgment and award in MVC.No.536/2020.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 20.09.2019, at about 10.30 a.m., when Krishna Naik was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA16-EF-8120 along with his friend one Rangappa, who was riding pillion, in Hunsekatte Village on NH-48, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-2477, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle from backside, as a result of which, Krishna Naik succumbed to injuries, whereas Rangappa suffered grievious injuries. Subsequently, the legal representatives of Krishna Naik filed claim petition in MVC.No.139/2020 and Rangappa filed claim

HC-KAR

petition in MVC.No.563/2020. The Tribunal has partly allowed both the claim petitions awarding compensation of Rs.20,70,056/- in MVC.No.139/2020 and awarding compensation of Rs.3,52,080/- in MVC.No.563/2020. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the legal heirs of Krishna Naik filed MFA.No.1419/2024, whereas the KSRTC filed MFA.No.7871/2024 challenging negligence as well as quantum of compensation awarded in MVC.No.139/2020. Likewise, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant- Rangappa filed MFA.No.8084/2023, whereas the KSRTC filed MFA.No.3409/2024 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC.No.563/2020.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the motorcycle in all these appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the KSRTC would contend that a false complaint was filed by the claimants stating that Krishna Naik (deceased) along with Rangappa were coming from Bharamasagar towards Hebballi (from Davanagere to

HC-KAR

Chitradurga) in the motorcycle and when they were taking right U-turn near Hunasekatte, the driver of the KSRTC bus, who came from Chitradurga towards Davanagere, dashed against the motorcycle from behind. However, it was the motorcycle which came in a high speed from opposite direction and suddenly took U-turn, where the divider was open for U-turn and without noticing the vehicles moving on the other side of the Highway, dashed against the front side of the KSRTC bus. Thus, it is clear that the rider of the motorcycle deceased Krishna Naik was negligent and due to his negligence, the accident occurred. As such, the Tribunal has erred in not attributing negligence on the rider of the motorcycle i.e., Krishna Naik.

5. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the age of deceased Krishna Naik as 45 years considering Exs.P1 to P8, particularly post-mortem report and thereby, applying the multiplier of '14' and adding future prospects, since as per the ration card, which was produced before this Court by the counsel for KSRTC by filing an application, the age of deceased Krishna Naik was 56 years as

HC-KAR

on 14.10.2012. Thus, as on the date of accident i.e., on 20.09.2019, the age of the deceased would be 63 years.

6. Accordingly, as regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of death of Krishna Naik, he would contend that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation and same requires to be reduced attributing contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., Krishna Naik.

7. As regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of injury suffered by Rangappa, learned counsel would contend that the same is exorbitant and requires to be reduced. He would also contend that since the rider of the motorcycle deceased Krishna Naik has also contributed to the occurrence of accident, the injured claimant would have arrayed the insurer of the motorcycle and would have claimed the compensation from the insurer of the motorcycle. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeals filed by the KSRTC.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant - legal heirs of Krishna Naik would contend that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the deceased considering Exs.P1 to

HC-KAR

P8 and has rightly held the driver of the KSRTC negligent for the occurrence of the accident. However, the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation. Thus, he would pray for allowing of the appeal of the claimants by dismissing the appeal of the KSRTC.

9. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for the claimant - Rangappa would contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meagre compensation and as such, the same requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, he would pray for allowing of the appeal of the claimant by dismissing the appeal of the KSRTC.

10. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the material on record.

11. As could be seen from the spot mahazar - Ex.P3, the KSRTC bus was moving from Chitradurga to Davanagere and near the divider which was open for U-turn, when the rider of the motorcycle, who was moving from Davanagere, took U-turn and passed substantial portion of the road after taking U-turn, the driver of the bus, who can have the clear view, without

HC-KAR

noticing the motorcycle dashed against the motorcycle and as such, due to his negligence, the accident occurred. The driver of the heavy vehicle like bus should be cautious and from his seat, he would have clear view of the vehicles moving ahead from long distance and that he could avoid occurrence of the accident, that too in a junction where there is open for U-turn. As such, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding the driver of the KSRTC bus negligent for occurrence of the accident.

12. As could be seen from the document i.e., the ration card, the age of deceased Krishna Naik would be 63 years as on the date of accident i.e., 20.09.2019, since the ration card depicts his age as 56 years as on 14.10.2012. However, this Court has provided an opportunity to the claimants to produce documents if any to substantiate the age of the deceased. Despite the claimants failed to produce the same. Thus, left with no other option, except to rely on the ration card, which was not disputed by the claimants, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in considering the age of deceased as 45 years solely relying on the post-mortem report and thereby

HC-KAR

awarding compensation towards loss of dependency applying the wrong multiplier and adding future prospects. Since the age of the deceased was 63 years, the claimants would not be entitled for adding future prospects and the multiplier would be '7'. As such, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.7,84,056/- (Rs.14,000 - 1/3rd X 12 X 7) towards loss of dependency as against Rs.19,60,056/- awarded by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded under other heads, being just and proper, are affirmed. Thus, the claimants in MFA.No.1419/2024 arising out of MVC.No.139/2020 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,94,056/- as against Rs.20,70,056/- along with interest at 6% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. Consequently, MFA.1419/2024 by the claimant is dismissed and MFA.No.7871/2023 filed by the KSRTC is allowed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal. The claimants would be entitled to disbursement of compensation in terms of the apportionment made by the Tribunal.

13. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured claimant - Rangappa in

HC-KAR

MVC.No.563/2020, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the claimant at Rs.14,000/- since the accident was of the year 2019. However, in view of the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 - the doctors and having regard to the Disability Certificate - Ex.P7 & 8, which depicts that the claimant has suffered 35% disability to whole body and as PW.3 specifically has assessed the functional disability to the whole body at 15% since the claimant has difficulty in mastication, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 10%. Accordingly, in view of the same, we hold that the claimant has sustained 15% functional disability. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.14,000/- X 12 X 9 X 15%) towards loss of future earnings as against Rs.1,51,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

14. However, as regards the amount of compensation awarded towards loss of income during laid up period, we deem it just and appropriate to treat the laid up period as three months. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000/- X 3 months) as against Rs.2,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.

HC-KAR

15. In view of the injuries suffered by the claimant and the lasting effect of the same on him, we deem it just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings as against Rs.20,000/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges as against Rs.2,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.

16. The sums awarded at Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment, being just and proper and Rs.1,56,682/- towards medical expenses, being based on documentary evidence, are affirmed.

17. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.)

1. Pain and sufferings 20,000 50,000

2. Loss of future income 1,51,200 2,26,800

3. Medical expenses 1,56,682 1,56,682

4. Loss of income during the laid up period 2,100 42,000

5. Attendant charges 2,100 10,000

HC-KAR

6. Food & nourishment, 10,000 10,000

7. Loss of amenities in life 10,000 50,000 Total 3,52,082 5,45,482

18. Thus, the claimant in MFA.No.8084/2023 is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.5,45,482/- as against Rs.3,52,082/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

19. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Accordingly, MFA.No.8084/2023 filed by the claimant is allowed in part and MFA.No.3409/2024 filed by the KSRTC is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20