The Divisional Manager v. Bovi Sathyamma W/O Late Venkateshappa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100604 OF 2023 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100542 OF 2023

IN MFA NO.100604/2023

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER K.S.R.T.C. KOPPALA DIVISION BY ITS OFFICE AT KOPPALA-583 231.

THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.K.R.T.C., SARIGE SADANA KALBURGI-585 101. &APPELLANT (BY SRI M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1BOVI SATHYAMMA W/O. LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KORAVARA ONI, KYASANAKERE VILLAGE, TQ. KUDLIGI-583 135. DIST. BALLARI.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.02 15:24:41 +0530 NC:(2025:KHC-D:16220-DB( MFA(No.(100604(of(2023( C/W(MFA(No.(100542(of(2023( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

2., SHRI,MALLIKARJUN,GADAGI,S/O.,ANDAPPA, AGE:,53,YEARS,,, DRIVER,,KSRTC,BUS,REG.NO.,KA-37/F-0760,, KOPPAL,DEPOT,, R/O.,SOODI,VILLAGE,, RONA,TALUK-582209,,GADAG,DISTRICT., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,, SRI,MANJUNATH,G.,PATIL,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1;, NOTICE,SERVED,TO,R2), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S.173(1),OF,MOTOR,VEHICLES,ACT,, 1988,, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 16.11.2022, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.29/2020, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, MOTOR, ACCIDENT, CLAIMS, TRIBUNAL,VI,,KUDLIGI,AND,DISMISS,THE,CLAIM,PETITION,IN, INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY., IN(MFA(NO.100542/2023( ( BETWEEN:(( ( THE,DIVISIONAL,MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C.,KOPPALA,DIVISION,, BY,ITS,OFFICE,AT, KOPPALA-583231., , THROUGH,CHIEF,LAW,OFFICER,,K.K.R.T.C.,, SARIGE,SADANA,, KALBURGI-585101., …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI,M.M.,KHANNUR,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., KOTRAMMA,W/O.,LATE,A.,NAGAPPA,@,NAGANNA, AGE.,48,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEHOLD,WORK,, R/O.,AMALAPURA,VILLAGE,, NOW,R/O.,NAYAKARA,ONI,, KYASANAKERE,VILLAGE,, TQ.,KUDLIGI-583135,,DIST.,BALLARI., , , NC:(2025:KHC-D:16220-DB( MFA(No.(100604(of(2023( C/W(MFA(No.(100542(of(2023( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

2., VEERESH,S/O.,LATE,,A.,NAGAPPA,@,NAGANNA, AGE.,25,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEHOLD,WORK,, R/O.,AMALAPURA,VILLAGE,, NOW,R/O.,NAYAKARA,ONI,, KYASANAKERE,VILLAGE,, TQ.,KUDLIGI-583135,,DIST.,BALLARI., ,

3., PREMA,D/O.,LATE,A.,NAGAPPA,@,NAGANNA, AGE.,27,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEHOLD,WORK,, R/O.,AMALAPURA,VILLAGE,, NOW,R/O.,NAYAKARA,ONI,,KYASANAKERE,VILLAGE,, TQ.,KUDLIGI-583135,,DIST.,BALLARI., ,

4., BASAMMA,W/O.,LATE,OBAIAH, AGE.,67,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEHOLD,WORK,, R/O.,AMALAPURA,VILLAGE,, NOW,R/O.,NAYAKARA,ONI,, KYASANAKERE,VILLAGE,,, TQ.,KUDLIGI-583135,,DIST.BALLARI., ,

5., SHRI,MALLIKARJUN,GADAGI,S/O.,ANDAPPA, AGE.,53,YEARS,,DRIVER,, KSRTC,BUS,REG.,NO.,KA-37/F-0760,, KOPPAL,DEPOT,, R/O.,SOODI,VILLAGE,, RONA,TALUK-582209,,GADAG,DIST., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,, SRI,MANJUNATH,G.,PATIL,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,TO,R4;, NOTICE,SERVED,TO,R5), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S.173(1),OF,MOTOR,VEHICLES,ACT,, 1988,, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED,16.11.2022,,PASSED,IN,MVC,NO.34/2020,,ON,THE,FILE, OF, THE, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, MOTOR, ACCIDENT, CLAIMS, TRIBUNAL-VI,,KUDLIGI,AND,DISMISS,THE,CLAIM,PETITION,IN, THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY., , , THESE,APPEALS,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS,DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,G,PANDIT, AND,, THE,HON'BLE,MRS,JUSTICE,GEETHA,K.B.,

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

Appellant-KSRTC has filed these appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 9M.V. Act9) praying for setting aside the common judgment and award passed in MVC No.29/2020 and MVC No.34/2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VI, Kudligi (for short 9the Tribunal9).

¶2Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶3Both claim petitions are filed under Section 166 of MV Act, praying for compensation in respect of death of V. Nagamma D/o Venkateshappa and A. Nagappa alias Naganna in respect of the road traffic accident that had taken place on 10.11.2019 at 12.30 a.m., with the involvement of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35-C-2964 and KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-37/

F-0760. As a result of the accident V. Nagamma and A. Nagappa died at the spot. Claimants being their dependants have filed both claim petitions claiming compensation under different heads before the Tribunal. In MVC No.29/2020, it is contended that the deceased V.Nagamma was aged about 25 years, unmarried and was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and claimant is mother of deceased and depending on the deceased.

¶4In MVC No.34/2020, it is averred that the deceased-A.Nagappa was aged about 50 years, working as mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and claimants in are the wife, son, daughter and mother of deceased.

¶5On service of notice, respondent No.2 in both the petitions appeared through its counsel and filed separate written statements in both petitions, but by taking similar contentions; wherein it denied the place, date, time and nature of accident and further denied the age, income, occupation of the deceased. It took further contention that

the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the owner and insurer of the Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35/C-2964 are not made as parties. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petitions.

¶6On behalf of claimant in MVC No.29/2020 and claimants in MVC No.34/2020 P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined, apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.9 and closed their side. On behalf of respondents, the driver of the vehicle (respondent No.1) is examined as RW.1 and closed their side before the Tribunal.

¶7After recording the evidence of both sides, hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver of KSRTC bus; both V.Nagamma and A.Nagappa died due to the said accident and granted compensation to claimants at Rs.20,83,400/-and Rs.12,09,328/-respectively under the different heads as below :-

In MVC No.29/2020: Sl. No. Description of heads Amount

¶1Income Rs.13,250/-p.m.

¶2With Future Prospects 40% of Rs.13,250/- i.e. Rs.5,300/-p.m. Total=Rs.18,550/-p.m.

¶3Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased 1/2 of Rs.18,550/- =Rs.9,275/- Balance Rs.9,275/-p.m.

¶4Total Income per year Rs.9,275 x 12 months =Rs.1,11,300/-

¶5Multiplier

¶6Loss of dependency Rs.1,11,300 x 18 M =Rs.20,03,400/-

¶7Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

¶8Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-

¶9Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-

Total Compensation Rs.20,83,400/- In MVC No.34/2020: Sl. No. Description of heads Amount

¶1Income Rs.13,250/-p.m.

¶2With Future Prospects 10% of Rs.13,250/- i.e. Rs.1,325/-p.m. Total=Rs.14,575/-p.m.

¶3Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased 1/3rd of Rs.14,575/- =Rs.4,858/- Balance Rs.9,716/-p.m.

¶4Total Income per year Rs.9,716 x 12 months =Rs.1,16,592/-

¶5Multiplier

¶6Loss of dependency Rs.1,16,592 x 9 M =Rs.10,49,328/-

¶7Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

¶8Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-

¶9Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/-each, 4 persons) Rs.1,20,000/-

Total Compensation Rs.12,09,328/-

¶8The appellant - KSRTC has filed these appeals contending that there was negligence on the part of driver of Tata Ace vehicle in causing the accident and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions filed by the claimants by allowing both the appeals.

¶9Heard learned counsel for appellant Sri M.M.Kannur and learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri Manjunath G. Patil.

¶10Learned counsel for appellant Sri M.M.Kannur would submit that there was head on collision between two vehicles and it is clearly established from the M.V.A. Report wherein the front side of both vehicles were damaged which shows the involvement of Tata Ace vehicle. Hence, at least 50% of contributory negligence is to be saddled on Tata Ace vehicle which is not at all made as party in the petitions. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.

¶11Learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri Manjunath G. Patel would submit that there is no material

produced before this Court to show the head on collision between two vehicles. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal has granted the compensation against respondents. Nothing was elicited before the Tribunal to show the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Ace vehicle, even by examining the driver of KSRTC bus as R.W.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of both appeals.

¶12Having heard the arguments of both sides and verifying the appeal records and also the copies of MVA report and deposition of the witnesses produced before Tribunal, the only point that would arise for consideration is: < Whether the appellant-KSRTC would prove that there is contributory negligence on the part of driver of Tata Ace in occurrence of the accident ?

¶13Our finding on the above point is in 8negative9 for the following reasons:

The date, place, time of accident and death of the daughter of claimant in MVC No.29/2020 and husband of claimant No.1 in MVC No.34/2020 is not in dispute.

¶14The evidence produced before the Tribunal and the MVA report reveals that the front side of both the vehicles was damaged. Only because there is damage of both vehicles of front side and both vehicles were coming from opposite directions, it cannot be said that there was head on collision between the two vehicles. Except MVA report, no other material is produced to prove these facts. The spot sketch is not produced before the Tribunal.

¶15The charge sheet is filed against the driver of KSRTC bus i.e., against RW.1 and he categorically admitted it in his cross-examination.

¶16Under these circumstances, when no material is produced before the Tribunal, merely producing copy of the accident report prepared by KSRTC itself cannot be a ground to say that there was head on collision between the

two vehicles. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus and not by the driver of Tata Ace vehicle.

¶17Learned counsel for respondents would submit that instead of taking 1/4th deduction towards personal expenses in MVC No.34/2020, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd and it is not proper. There is no appeal filed by claimants. Hence, considering these facts would not arise in these appeals.

¶18There is no serious allegation that police have not investigated the matter properly and filed charge-sheet only against respondent No.1 and not against driver of Tata Ace vehicle. Under these circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the appeals and the judgment and award of the Tribunal in both cases needs no interference.

¶19With the above observations, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER 1) Both the appeals are dismissed. 2) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. 3) Pending IAs if any, stands disposed of. 4) No order as to costs.

Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

HMB Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35