THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND SELF INSURANCE vs BHEEMAVVAN W/O UMESH JANTLI,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103368 OF 2025 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
AND SELF INSURANCE FUND,
NWKSRTC, HUBBALLI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKSRTC GADAG,
DIVISION GADAG,
BUS NO.KA-57/F-4545,
(RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2
OWNER OF THE VEHICLE)
BOTH APPELLANTS ARE
R/BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICES,
SARIGE BHAVANA,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-27.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHEEMAVVA
W/O. UMESH JANTLI,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KOTUMACHAGI,
TQ: DIST: GADAG-582119.
2. ANITA D/O. UMESH JANTLI
AGE: 03 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
3. RAYANRAJ S/O. UMESH JANTLI,
AGE: 17 DAYS, OCC. NIL,
(RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
THEIR NATURAL M/G HER MOTHER I.E.,
RESPONDENT NO.1
BHEEMAVVA W/O. UMESH JANTLI,
R/O. KOTUMACHAGI,
TQ: DIST: GADAG-582119.
4. SHEKHAVVA
W/O. MUDIYAPPA JANTLI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KOTUMACHAGI,
TQ: DIST: GADAG-582119.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS R/BY R1)
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 PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM, AND MACT, GADAG IN MVC NO.211/2023 DATED 02.04.2025 IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.04.2025
passed in MVC No.211/2023 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and C.J.M., and M.A.C.T., Gadag, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) the
respondents being the appellants preferred this appeal.
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 02.09.2023 at
about 4:00 p.m., near Shiragumpi Cross on the Gajendragad–
Gadag road, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal District, the husband of
Petitioner No.1, Umesh S/o Mudiyappa Jantli, was riding
motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-26/X-1349. A bus bearing Reg.
No.KA-57/F-4545, driven rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the motorcycle, causing grievous injuries to Umesh.
Despite treatment at various hospitals, he succumbed to the
injuries on 07.09.2023 at SDM Hospital, Dharwad.
4. Accordingly, petitioners filed a claim petition
claiming compensation for death of Umesh in the accident.
5. After service of notice, Respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared through their counsel and filed objections denying the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
petition averments, including the age and income of the
deceased. They contended that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased
himself and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.
Hence, they sought dismissal of the petition with costs.
6. On the basis of said contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 02/09/2023
at about 4.00 p.m. on Kotumachagi to Hirekoppa
road, the husband of the petitioner No.1 by name
Umesh S/o Mudiyappa Jantli sustained injuries and
succumbed due to accident caused due to rash and
negligent driving by the driver of bus bearing Reg.
No.KA-57/F-4545?
2. Whether the respondents prove that accident was
occurred due to own negligence and carelessness
of deceased Umesh?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
4. What order or Award?”
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herself examined
as PW1 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On
the other hand, driver cum conductor or respondent No.2
examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
8. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation under
following heads:
1 Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000=00
Funeral expenses &
2 Rs.15,000=00
transportation charges
3 Loss of dependency Rs.22,32,000=00
4 Future prospects (40%) Rs.8,92,800=00
Medical expenses &
5 Rs.1,47,700=00
attending charges
6 Loss of estate Rs.15,000=00
Total compensation Rs.34,62,500=00
9. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/NWKSRTC
filed this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased. Further
argued that the rider of the motorcycle has rode motorcycle in
a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules,
and dashed against the bus. The rider of the motorcycle had no
driving license and the motorcycle was not covered with
insurance and in this regard, police have filed a charge sheet
against the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has
erroneously awarded interest on future prospects and
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
accordingly, saddled the liability on the rider of the motorcycle
also. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners
submitted that the motorcycle rider has not contributed any
negligence to the accident and further argued that the Tribunal
has rightly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned
award and there is no need to interfere. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
12. 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 was justified in
attributing contributory negligence to the
respondents?
(ii) What order?
13. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the
following:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
14. Regarding Point No.(i): The undisputed facts are
that on 29.20.2023 at 04:00 p.m., there was an accident
between the motorcycle bearing No.KA-26/X-1349 and bus
bearing No.KA-57/F-4545 on Gajendragad, Shiragumpi cross,
and due to the accident, motorcycle rider died inspite of better
treatment. In this case, on filing of the complaint, police have
investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the
driver of the bus for the offence punishable under Sections 279,
338 and 304A of IPC.
15. Though the driver of the bus taken up the
contention that the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the rider of the motorcycle, he has not chosen to file any
complaint against the rider of the motorcycle alleging that the
rider of the motorcycle rode the motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner. He had given oral evidence before the
Tribunal. He himself examined as R.W.1 before the Tribunal
and admitted that charge sheet has been filed against the
driver of the bus.
16. It is pertinent to note that, though contention has
been raised that the rider of the motorcycle has contributed his
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
negligence to the accident, nothing material evidence is placed
before the Court to attribute the negligence on the rider of the
motorcycle. It is the contention of the appellants that the rider
of the motorcycle has no driving license and the motorcycle
was not covered with insurance. Since, there is no driving
license to the rider of the motorcycle and the motorcycle not
covered with insurance, it does not mean that negligence on
the past of the rider of the motorcycle has been proved. In this
case there is no independent evidence to prove that the rider of
the motorcycle attributed his negligence to the accident.
Further the charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus
remains unchallenged. So the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is not sustainable.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the assessment made by the Tribunal is on higher side. The
accident occurred in the year 2023. So as per the guidelines
issued by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, the notional
income would be ₹15,500/-. The deceased died at the age of
31 years. The multiplier applicable would be ‘16’. As per
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
1
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi ,
40% income should be added towards the future prospects.
18. The deceased died leaving behind the four
th
dependants. So, 1/4 of his income should be deducted
towards his personal expenses.
₹15,500/- + 40% towards future prospects (i.e. ₹6,200/-)
= ₹21,700/-
₹21,700/- - ¼ towards personal living expenses (i.e.
₹5,425/-) = ₹16,275/-
₹16,275/- X 12 X 16 = ₹31,24,800/-
19. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of ₹31,24,800/- towards “loss of dependency”.
20. Petition No.1 is the wife, petition Nos.2 and 3 are
the children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of Pranay Sethi (supra), the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under head of loss of consortium at ₹40,000/-
each. The Tribunal has awarded ₹1,60,000/- under this head,
which does not call for any interference.
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
21. Further Tribunal has awarded compensation under
the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate at ₹15,000/-
each. It does not call for any interference.
22. The Tribunal, upon considering the documentary
evidence, has rightly awarded compensation of ₹1,47,700/-
towards medical expenses and attendant charges , which
does not call for any interference.
23. In all, the petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency ₹31,24,800/-
2 Loss of consortium ₹1,60,000/-
3 Funeral expenses ₹15,000/-
4 Loss of estate ₹15,000/-
5 Medical expenses ₹1,47,700/-
TOTAL ₹34,62,500/-
24. Accordingly, it is clear that the Tribunal has rightly
awarded compensation of ₹ 34,62,500 /- to the petitioners,
which does not call for any interference by this Court.
25. With the above discussions, point No.(i) is answered
in the affirmative .
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16942
MFA No. 103368 of 2025
CNR: KAHC020149642025
26. Regarding Point No.(ii): In view of the findings
on point No.(i) this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the appellants/NWKSRTC
is dismissed.
(ii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted
to the Tribunal.
(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.: 39
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 14-10-2026