THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, vs DURAGAPPA S/O HANAMANTAPPA @ HANAMAPPA KARI,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100653 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
(OFFENDING VEHICLE BUS BEARING
REG. NO.KA-42/F-482),
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DURAGAPPA S/O HANAMANTAPPA @ HANAMAPPA KARI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: NEHRU NAGAR, NEAR WATER TANK,
KERUR-587 206,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
…RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
BHARATHI
H M
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.10.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.134/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.11.07 10:58:48
+0530
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. RON, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,01,246/- WITH INTEREST AT 8 P.A. AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant-North Western Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation is in appeal challenging the
judgment and award dated 30.10.2019 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ron in MVC
No.134/2018. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition filed by the respondent herein and awarded a
compensation of ₹1,01,246/- with interest at the rate of
8% per annum.
2. The facts, in brief, culminating in the present
appeal are as follows;
2.1. The respondent-claimant before the Tribunal
was travelling in a Bus belonging to the appellant-
Corporation on 22.11.2017. At about 09:45 a.m., when
the Bus was proceeding from Badami towards Gadag,
because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Bus, the Bus hit a Tractor and Trailer.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
2.2. The respondent sustained injuries and was
treated at the Government Hospital, Ron. He was
thereafter admitted at the Hospital in Badami and he took
treatment for 08 days.
2.3. At the time of accident, the respondent was
aged about 32 years and he used to earn ₹6,000/- per
month by doing coolie work.
2.4. Alleging that the accident occurred only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus
belonging to the appellant-Corporation, compensation was
sought from the appellant-Corporation. The respondent
sought compensation of ₹3,60,000/- along with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum.
3. The appellant-Corporation was arrayed as
respondent before the Tribunal, entered appearance and
filed objections. The Corporation took the stand that the
accident occurred not because of the negligence of the
driver of the Bus but because of the negligence of the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
owner and driver of the Tractor Trailer. It was also
contended that the insurer of the Tractor Trailer have not
been impleaded and therefore the claim petition was bad
for non-joinder of parties.
4. On hearing the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:--
“::ISSUES::
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, he sustained
multiple injuries in the Road Traffic Accident, that took
place on 22.11.2017 , at about 9.45 a.m, on Hirehal-
Ron road, near Thallihal cross, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of NWKSRTC bus bearing
Reg. No. K.A-43/F- 482 , in an actionable negligence?
2. Whether the Respondent proves that, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and
Trailor bearing KA-26/TA-6890, the alleged accident had
taken place?
3. Whether the Respondent proves that, the petition is
bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation,
as prayed for? If yes, form whom?
5. What order?”
5. On behalf of the respondent-claimant, he
himself was examined as PW.1. Another witness by name
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
Raddi S/o. Yallappa Kari was examined as PW.2 and
Dr.Jayantkumar S/o. Chandappa who treated the
respondent was examined as PW.3. Documentary evidence
from Exs.P-1 to P-20 were produced.
6. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation, the
driver of the Bus was examined as RW.1 and the
authorization letter was marked as Ex.R-1.
7. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was
caused solely because of the negligence of the driver of
bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation. It is pertinent
to the police filed the charge sheet against the driver of
the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation. A certified
copy of the charge sheet was produced as Ex.P-6. It is
pertinent to recall here in that the recent judgment in the
case of Reena Vs Managing Director, Karnataka State
1
Road Transport Corporation , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
1
CA Nos.10755-10758/2026 dated 19.08.2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
has held that filing of charge sheet should be taken as
prima facie evidence of negligence. No evidence has been
placed on behalf of the appellant-Corporation to prove that
there was any negligence on the part of the owner or
driver of the tractor and trailer. Based on the evidence on
record, the Tribunal has recorded the correct finding that
the accident occurred only because of the negligence of
the driver of the bus. There is no occasion to interfere with
such finding based on appreciation of the evidence.
8. The other contention of the appellant is that the
respondent-claimant did not implead the driver and
insurer of the tractor and trailer as party to the
proceedings. The Tribunal has also considered this
contention and rejected it. This Court is of the opinion that
the Tribunal has rightly rejected that contention because
the negligence has been found only with the driver of the
bus. It is only the driver of the bus who has been charge
sheeted for offences punishable under the Motor Vehicles
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
Act and in such circumstances, there is no occasion to
implead either owner, driver or the insurer of the tractor
and trailer. This contention also deserves to be rejected.
9. Sri S.C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the appellant
made a fervent plea that the interest awarded by the
Tribunal is on the higher side. He relies on the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in Ms.Joyeeta Bose and
2
others vs. Venkateshan V. and others to contend that
the interest that can be allowed by the Tribunal is only at
the rate of 6% per annum.
10. Accepting the contention of Sri Bhuti which is
based on a binding precedent of this Court the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 8% per
annum to 6% per annum.
11. Except modifying the rate of interest, there is
no occasion to interfere with any other finding of the
2
MFA No.5896/2018 c/w MFA No.4444/2018 & 4659/2018
disposed of on 24.08.2020
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17079
MFA No. 100653 of 2020
CNR: KAHC020051382020
Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified
to that extent. Resultantly, following order is made:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The award which directs payment of interest at
the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation
amount is modified and interest is directed to
be paid at the rate of 6% per annum.
(iii) Except the rate of interest, the award is upheld
in other respects.
(iv) The amount if already deposited is ordered to
be disbursed by paying interest at the rate of
6% per annum
(v) The amount deposited before this Court is
ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE
PJ,NAA
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20