BASAWWA W/O. CHANDDRRAPPA NAIKAR vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101411 OF 2024 (MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100797 OF 2025 (MV-D)

IN MFA No. 101411/2024
BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.W.K.R.T.C.,
BELAGAVI DIVISION,
BELAGAVI,
(OWNER AND INSURER OF KSRTC
BUS BEARING NO.KA-22/F-1793)

REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
NWKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. BASAWWA W/O. CHANDRAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HOLIHOSUR VILLAGE,
TALUKA: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591118,
PRESENTLY AT SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.

2. KUMARI. BHARATI
D/O. CHANDRAPPA NAIKAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HOLIHOSUR VILLAGE,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

TALUKA: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591118,
PRESENTLY AT SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.

R2 DIED AND R1 IS THE LRS OF R2
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR KOTIN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 DIED AND R1 IS THE LRS OF R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
AND IX ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, IN MVC NO.681/2019 DATED
20.11.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 100797/2025
BETWEEN:

BASAWWA W/O. CHANDDRRAPPA NAIKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HOLIHOSUR VILLAGE,
TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI,
PRESENTLY AT SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI 590016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR KOTIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC BELAGAVI DIVISION,
BELAGAVI-590001.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C
NO.681/2019 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND
IX ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, DATED 20.11.2023 BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

THESE APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.11.2023
passed in MVC No.681/2019 by VIII Additional District Judge
and IX Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’),
the petitioner being an appellant prepared the appeal in MFA
No.100797/2025 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
The NWKRTC who is the respondent before the Tribunal also
preferred an appeal in MFA No.101411/2024 seeking
modification of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.11.2017 at
about 9.45 a.m., the deceased Mahantesh S/o Chandrappa
Naikar was proceeding as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing
No.KA-22/EM-1064 from Holihosur bus stop towards Gram
Panchayat. When they reached Neginahal–M.K. Hubli Road near
the house of Basavaraj Kenchappa Melavanki, a KSRTC bus
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

bearing No.KA-22/F-1793, driven in a rash and negligent
manner, came from Bailhongal towards M.K. Hubli and dashed
against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. His body was
shifted to P.M.C., Neginhal, where post-mortem was conducted.
The deceased was aged about 18 years and was working as a
coolie, earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioners,
being his mother and sister, filed a claim petition claiming
compensation.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared
through counsel and filed objections denying the allegations in
the petition, including the rash and negligent driving of the
KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-22/F-1793. Respondent denied the
deceased’s age, occupation and income as claimed by the
petitioners. The respondent contended that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle,
which was carrying two pillion riders without helmets and hit
the rear side of the bus despite sufficient space on the left side
of the road. It is further contended that the motorcycle owner
was not impleaded and the rider did not possess a valid driving
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

licence, and the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties. Respondent denied its liability to pay compensation and
contended that the amount claimed was excessive. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.

5. On the basis of said contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“ISSUES
1. ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.11.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 9.45 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ
¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §¸ï ZÁ®PÀ vÁ£ÀÄ £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹. §¸ï £ÀA. PÉ.J-
22/J¥sï 1793 £ÉÃzÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÉÃV£ÀºÁ¼À-JA.PÉ. ºÀÄ§½î gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è Cw ªÉÃUÀ
ºÁUÀÆ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀÄ ¥ÁætPÉÌ ºÁ¤AiÀiÁUÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è
ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ-22/JªÀiï-1064
£ÉÃzÀÝPÉÌ C¥ÀWÁvÀ¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄªÁV ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£À »A§¢ ¸ÀªÁgÀ£ÁzÀ
ªÀÄÈvÀ ªÀÄºÁAvÉÃ±À ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà £ÁAiÀÄÌgÀ EªÀjUÉ wÃªÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV
¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÁ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ gÀÄdÄªÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?
2. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ eÁUÀwPÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðjgÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?
ºÁUÁzÀgÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁjAzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ?
3. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉÃ±À CxÀªÁ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ?”

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herself examined
as PW1 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.6. On the
other hand, the respondent has examined the driver of the
Corporation as R.W.1 but did not p roduce any documentary
evidence.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

7. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation under
following heads:
Loss of dependency. 15,49,800/-
Transportation of dead body 15,000/-
and Funeral expenses.
Loss of estate. 15,000/-
Filial consortium towards 80,000/-
petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
Total 16,59,800/-

8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/insurance
company filed this appeal.

9. Learned counsel Sri.S.C.Bhuti argued that petitioner
No. 2, who was the sister of the deceased, died during the
pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Hence, she
is not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of
consortium. Further it is argued that the rider of the motorcycle
also contributed his negligence to the accident. But the Tribunal
has not attributed any negligence on the motorcycle rider, the
police have investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet
against the driver of the bus and also the rider of the
motorcycle. It is argued that the rider of the motorcycle also
contributed his negligence to the accident. Hence, prayed to
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

attribute the contributory negligence on the motorcycle rider
also.

10. Learned counsel Sri. Vijay Kumar Kotin argued that
the Tribunal rightly attributed the negligence on the drive of the
bus which does not call for interference. Further he fairly
conceded that petitioner No.2 died when the matter is pending
before the Tribunal itself but it is not brought to the notice of
the Tribunal and petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased
not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of
consortium. Further it is prayed for deduction of 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased towards the personal living expenses.

11. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:

(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the
liability on respondent to pay the
compensation?

(ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

(iii) What order?

12. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) : Partly in the affirmative
Point No.(iii) : As per the final order, for the
following:

13. Regarding Point No.(i): In the evidence before
the Tribunal, the respondent filed an objection and taken up
the contention that the rider of the motorcycle is not holding
driving license and he was not wearing helmet at the time of
accident. Except this, no contention is taken in the first
instance, while filing objections for attributing the negligence
on the part of rider of the motorcycle. In this case, the police
have investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet which
has not been challenged. Further, R.W.1, examined on behalf
of the respondent, admitted in his evidence that there was a
curve at the accident spot, and nothing material evidence is
elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to prove that the rider of the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

motorcycle contributed his negligence for the accident. When
there is no cogent material evidence before the Court, it is very
difficult and it is not proper to attribute the negligence on the
part of rider. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative .

14. Regarding point No.(ii) The Tribunal awarded
compensation of ₹40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1 and 2
under the head of loss of consortium. Petitioner No.2 died
during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence, petitioner No.2
is not entitle for compensation under the head of loss of
consortium. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company
1
Limited v. Pranay Sethi , the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under head of consortium to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2
is modified to the extent of ₹40,000/- with 10% escalation in
favour of petitioner No.1 i.e. ₹44,000/- .

15. The Tribunal awarded ₹15,000/- each under the
heads of funeral expenses and loss of estate . Accordingly,

1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

the same are enhanced by adding 10% escalation i.e., total
amounting to ₹33,000/- .

16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
₹15,49,800/- under the head of loss of dependency. The
Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the
deceased towards the personal living expenses as he died as a
bachelor. This Court did not find any reason to interfere with
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of
loss of dependency.

17. In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency ₹15,49,800/-
2 Loss of consortium ₹44,000/-
3 Funeral expenses and loss of ₹33,000/-
estate.
TOTAL ₹16,26,800/-

18. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of ₹16,26,800/- as against ₹16,59,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal.

19. With the above discussions, point No.(ii) is
answered partly in the affirmative .
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16697
MFA No. 101411 of 2024
C/W MFA No. 100797 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020053542024

20. Regarding Point No.(iii): In view of the findings
on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is
entitled to receive compensation of
₹16,26,800/- as against ₹16,59,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal.

i) Amount in deposit be transmitted to the
Tribunal. If the amount is in excess, be
refunded to the insurer on proper identification.

(iii) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records
forthwith.

(iv) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
applications, if any, does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, the same are
disposed of.

(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE

SSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026