V GOPAMMA vs RAMESH B C AND ORS

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200156 OF 2025 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

V. GOPAMMA
W/O LATE SRINIVAS RAO,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O WARD NO.15 BRAHMANAWADI,
MANVI, NOW R/AT KALAMALA VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584136.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. RAMESH B. C.
S/O CHOWDAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC,
BUS BRG.REGN, NO.KA 34 F 1362.
R/O BANDENAHALLI BRAHMASANDRA,
POST: MADHUGIRI, TQ. MADHUGIRI
DIST. TUMKUR-572124.

2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC, BALLARI DEPOT,
CENTRAL OFFICE SARIGE SADANA, KALABURAGI
BALLARI DIVN. BALLARI-583103.
(OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF BUS BRG.
REGN. NO.KA.34/ F.1362).

3. V. MADHURI
D/O V. LATE SRINIVAS RAO,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL.










Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA
S D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024



4. V. MANASA
D/O LATE V. SRINIVAS RAO,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

ALL ARE R/O WARD NO.15
BRAHMANAWADI MANVI,
NOW AT KALAMALA VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584136.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARANABSAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 13.02.2025 NOTICE TO R1, R3 AND R4
ARE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
ENHANCED THE AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.12.2023
PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
MACT. AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO.227/2022, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellants, calling in
question the legality, correctness and propriety of the
judgment and award dated 06.12.2023 passed in MVC
No.227/2022 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge
and MACT, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Tribunal’ for brevity).


2. The present appellant No.1 and respondent
Nos.3 and 4 were the petitioners before the Tribunal,
whereas the present respondents Nos.1 and 2 were
respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. For the sake
of convenience and clarity and to avoid confusion, the
parties are referred to as per their rank assigned before
the Tribunal.


3. The petitioners filed MVC No.227/2022 seeking
compensation on account of the death of one
Saimanikanta, who lost his life in a road traffic accident
that occurred on 20.02.2022. According to the petitioners,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioners Nos.2 and 3
are the elder sisters of the deceased Saimanikanta.

4. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as
follows.
(i) The petitioners filed MVC No.227/2022
contending that on 20.02.2022, at about 12.00 p.m., the
deceased Saimanikanta and one Vijay were pillion riders
on the motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MBLHAW122
M4G15508, along with one Channabasava. According to
the petitioners, the said Chennabasava was riding the
motorcycle at a moderate speed, cautiously and by
maintaining proper lane discipline.

(ii) The petitioners further contended that while the
deceased Saimanikanta, Vijay and Chennabasava were
proceeding near Dhyana Mandira, Manvi Town, on
Sindhanur-Manvi Road, the N.E.K.R.T.C. bus bearing
registration No.KA-34/F-1362 (hereinafter referred to as
the “offending vehicle” for the sake of brevity), was being

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, endangering human life and safety. It
was further contended that the driver of the said bus,
without giving any signal, took the bus towards the wrong
side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle.

(iii) The petitioners further contended that due to
the said accident, the deceased Saimanikanta sustained
grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body
and died at the spot.

(iv) The petitioners further contended that the
accident occurred solely due to the negligent act of the
driver of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that
they were dependent upon the income of the deceased
Saimanikanta and that, after his death, they were left
without financial support and were facing financial
hardship. On these grounds, the petitioners filed MVC
No.227/2022 seeking suitable compensation.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024



5. After presentation of the petition, the same
came to be registered and notices were issued to the
respondents. The respondents entered appearance before
the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed its written statement
and contested the claim petition. Respondent No.1 filed a
memo adopting the written statement filed by respondent
No.2.

6. Upon completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed three issues for its consideration. Thereafter, the
Tribunal afforded reasonable opportunity to the parties to
adduce evidence. The first petitioner, Smt. Gopamma wife
of late Srinivasa Rao, examined herself as PW1. The
petitioners got marked twelve documents as Exs.P1 to
P12. Per contra, respondent No.1, namely, B.C. Ramesh,
examined himself as RW1. The respondents got marked
three documents as Exs.R1 to R3.


7. After completion of the evidence, the Tribunal
heard the arguments of the learned advocates for the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


parties and thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned
judgment. By judgment and award dated 06.12.2023, the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.23,80,200/- to the
petitioners, together with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of the petition till realization. The
Tribunal further imposed a condition that, in the event the
respondents failed to deposit the awarded amount within
the stipulated period, the compensation amount would
carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.


8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
appellants have preferred the present appeal principally
contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is inadequate.


9. The learned advocate for the
petitioners/appellants, Sri Basavaraj R. Math, would
contend that petitioner No.2, Smt. Madhuri, and petitioner
No.3, Smt. Manasa, though elder sisters of the deceased,
are unmarried and were entirely dependent upon the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


income of the deceased Saimanikanta. The learned
counsel would further contend that, despite the said fact
having been brought on record, the Tribunal has
erroneously failed to consider the same and proceeded to
deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his
personal and living expenses. According to the learned
counsel, since petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were dependent
upon the income of the deceased, only one-third of his
income ought to have been deducted towards his personal
and living expenses.


10. In addition to the above, the learned counsel
for the petitioners/appellants would contend that the
Tribunal has not awarded just and adequate compensation
under the conventional heads and, therefore, the
compensation awarded under the said heads also requires
enhancement.


11. Besides, the learned advocate for the
petitioners/appellants would contend that the deceased

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


Saimanikanta, during his lifetime, was engaged in driving
commercial vehicles and possessed a valid and effective
driving licence. The said driving licence has also been
produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of
the said fact and ought not to have assessed the income of
the deceased by placing reliance upon the notional income
chart.


12. Amongst other formal grounds, the learned
advocate for the appellants/petitioners prays for suitable
enhancement of compensation.


13. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the
Corporation, Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, would contend
that the record reveals that, at the time of the accident
and consequent death of Saimanikanta, he was aged
about 19 years, whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were aged
about 26 years and 24 years, respectively. Therefore, they

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


cannot be construed to be dependents upon the income of
the deceased.


14. In addition to the above, the learned counsel
for the Corporation would contend that the marital status
of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has not been mentioned in the
cause title. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 cannot, in any manner, be treated
as dependents upon the income of their younger brother,
namely, Saimanikanta.


15. Further, the learned advocate for the
Corporation would contend that the petitioners have
produced only a photocopy of the driving licence of
Saimanikanta and have not made any effort to prove the
said document in accordance with law. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal was justified
in not placing reliance upon the said document.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024



16. Amongst other formal grounds, the learned
advocate for the Corporation prays for dismissal of the
appeal and confirmation of the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal.


17. Heard the arguments of the learned advocate
for the appellants/petitioners and the learned advocate for
respondent No.2/Corporation.


18. The record shows that the Tribunal has
deducted 50% of the income of the deceased
Saimanikanta towards his personal and living expenses.
While arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Tribunal
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and further concluded that
only petitioner No.1, Smt. Gopamma, being the mother of
the deceased, was entirely dependent upon the income of
the deceased Saimanikanta. This finding of the learned
Tribunal is seriously disputed by the learned advocate for

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


the petitioners and supported by the learned advocate for
the Corporation.


19. It is necessary to note that the marital status of
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is not mentioned either in the cause
title of the petition or in the body of the petition filed
before the Tribunal. Further, the record shows that the
first petitioner, Smt. Gopamma, has examined herself as
PW1. PW1 filed her affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of
the CPC in lieu of her examination-in-chief. It is significant
to note that even in her examination-in-chief, PW1 has not
stated anything about the marital status of petitioner
Nos.2 and 3.


20. However, in paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed
in lieu of her examination-in-chief, Smt. Gopamma has
specifically stated that claimant Nos.2 and 3, being the
sisters of the deceased, were also dependent upon the
income of the deceased Saimanikanta. Therefore, it
becomes clear that the examination-in-chief of PW1

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


contains material assertions which, if left uncontroverted,
have a bearing against the case of the respondents.


21. This Court has also perused the cross-
examination of PW1. It is necessary to note that, during
the cross-examination of PW1, namely, Gopamma, the
Corporation suggested that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were
not entitled to compensation. PW1 emphatically denied the
said suggestion. It is significant to note that, except
putting the said suggestion to PW1, the Corporation has
not made any further effort to establish its contention.


22. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the
Corporation intended to establish that petitioner Nos.2 and
3 were or are married and were residing in the respective
matrimonial homes, and that their respective husbands
were meeting all their needs, thereby demonstrating that
they were not dependent upon the income of the
deceased, nothing prevented the Corporation from eliciting
such facts from the mouth of PW1. However, no such

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


effort has been made by the Corporation. Therefore, there
is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 that
petitioner No.2, Madhuri, and petitioner No.3, Manasa,
were dependent upon the income of the deceased
Saimanikanta.


23. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice one
more relevant circumstance. In the cause title of the
petition, the petitioners are shown as the wife and children
of one Srinivasa Rao, who was, by then, no more. In other
words, at the time of the accident and the consequent
death of Saimanikanta, the father of the deceased was not
alive.


24. If the father had been alive, it could have been
contended that the sisters of Saimanikanta were not
dependent upon his income, but were dependent upon the
income of their father. However, such is not the situation
in the present case. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances makes the version of

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


the petitioners that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were dependent
upon the income of their brother, Saimanikanta, more
probable.


25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that, instead of deducting 50% of the
income of the deceased Saimanikanta towards his
personal and living expenses, the learned Tribunal ought
to have deducted one-third of his income towards his
personal and living expenses.


26. The record further shows that the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased Saimanikanta at
Rs.14,750/- per month and added 40% of the said amount
towards future prospects.


27. The learned advocate for the
appellants/petitioners would contend that Saimanikanta
was not an ordinary worker. On the contrary, he
possessed a driving licence which authorised him to drive

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


non-transport vehicles and, therefore, the said driving
licence itself indicates that he was a skilled driver. Hence,
according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought not to
have placed reliance upon the notional income chart while
assessing the income of the deceased Saimanikanta.


28. Per contra, the learned advocate for the
Corporation would contend that the petitioners have failed
to prove the said driving licence and, therefore, the
contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners cannot be
accepted.


29. This Court has once again carefully perused the
entire material available on record. The driving licence of
the deceased Saimanikanta has been marked as Ex.P9
through PW1-Smt. Gopamma. It is necessary to note that,
during the cross-examination of PW1, the Corporation has
not even put a suggestion that Ex.P1 was concocted or
fabricated. It is further necessary to note that Ex.P9
discloses that the deceased Saimanikanta was born in the

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


year 2003 and that the driving licence was issued to him
in the year 2021 and was valid up to the year 2043. It is
also relevant to note that Ex.P9 discloses that
Saimanikanta was authorised to drive a non-transport
vehicle. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court,
some addition to the income of the deceased
Saimanikanta is warranted.


30. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that the
Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.14,750/- per month by placing reliance upon the
notional income chart published by the KSLSA. The
accident occurred in the year 2022 and, therefore, the
income assessed by the Tribunal is in conformity with the
notional income chart applicable for the said year.
However, having regard to the skill possessed by the
deceased, this Court is of the considered opinion that, if
the notional income prescribed for the immediately
succeeding year, i.e., 2023, is taken as the yardstick for

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


determining the income of the deceased, the ends of
justice would be met. As per the notional income chart
published by the KSLSA, the income prescribed for the
year 2023 is Rs.15,500/- per month.


31. The learned advocate for the Corporation would
contend that mere production of the driving licence does
not dispense with the requirement of proving the same.
According to the learned counsel, to prove the said driving
licence, the petitioners ought to have examined either the
authority having custody of the original document or the
person who had issued the said driving licence before the
Tribunal. However, the petitioners have not made any
such effort. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,
the driving licence cannot be treated as a duly proved
document.


32. Having regard to the aforesaid contention
advanced by the learned advocate for the Corporation, this
Court has once again perused the entire cross-examination

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


of PW1. During the cross-examination of PW1, not even a
suggestion has been put to her that Ex.P9, the driving
licence, was created or concocted. In such circumstances,
the conduct of the Corporation indicates that it has, in
substance, accepted the case of the petitioners with
regard to the said document. Therefore, the Corporation
cannot now turn around and dispute the authenticity of
the said driving licence.


33. In addition to the above, the record shows that,
when the said driving licence was marked in evidence, the
Corporation did not raise any objection to its marking.
Therefore, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances is that the Corporation cannot now dispute
the genuineness of the said driving licence. Accordingly,
this Court concludes that the income of the deceased
Saimanikanta is required to be taken at Rs.15,500/- per
month. 40% of the said amount towards future prospects

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


comes to Rs.6,200/-. On adding the same to the assessed
income, the monthly income works out to Rs.21,700/-.


34. As stated above, one-third of the said amount is
required to be deducted towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased Saimanikanta. One-third of
Rs.21,700/- comes to Rs.7,233/-. After deducting the said
amount, the balance works out to Rs.14,467/- per month.


35. On multiplying the said amount by 12, the
annual contribution of the deceased Saimanikanta to the
petitioners works out to Rs.1,73,604/-. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, the appropriate
multiplier applicable is 18. On multiplying the annual
contribution of Rs.1,73,604/- by the multiplier of 18, the
amount works out to Rs.31,24,872/-. Accordingly, the
petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.31,24,872/- under
the head “loss of dependency”.

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024



36. The record shows that the Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head “mental shock and
agony”. The learned advocate for the Corporation would
contend that, in Pranay Sethi as well as Sarla Verma ,
no compensation has been awarded under the head
“mental shock and agony”. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel, the said amount cannot be separately
awarded and requires to be adjusted while determining
the compensation under the other permissible heads.

37. This Court has carefully perused the aforesaid
judgments. It is true that the Hon’ble Apex Court has not
awarded any amount under the head “mental shock and
agony”. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal under the said head cannot be maintained as
a separate component and has to be taken into
consideration while determining the compensation payable
under the other permissible heads.

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024



38. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards transportation and funeral expenses. However, as
per the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi , a sum of
Rs.15,000/- is to be awarded towards funeral expenses
and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,
with an enhancement of 10% once in every three years.
Applying the said principle, a sum of Rs.16,500/- is
required to be awarded towards transportation and funeral
expenses, as applicable, under the conventional heads.


39. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate and parental
Pranay Sethi
consortium. As per the law declared in , a
sum of Rs.16,500/- is required to be awarded towards loss
of estate.


40. As regards consortium, petitioner No.1,
Smt. Gopamma, being the mother of the deceased
Saimanikanta, is entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards
parental consortium. It is necessary to note that

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


consortium includes the element of love, affection,
companionship and protection. By losing their brother,
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have also lost the love, affection,
companionship and protection of their brother,
Saimanikanta. Therefore, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being
the sisters of the deceased Saimanikanta, are also entitled
to a sum of Rs.44,000/- each towards love and affection.


41. On re-determination and re-assessment, the
respondents/petitioners are entitled for compensation, as
under:
Sl. Heads Compensation
No awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by
this Court
1. Mental shock and agony Rs.50,000/- --
2. Transportation and Rs.50,000/- Rs.16,500/-
Funeral charges
3.



Loss of estate and
parental consortium

i) Loss of estate:

ii) Loss of parental
consortium (pet.No.1)

iii)Loss of love &
affection (pet. Nos.2
and 3):
Rs.50,000/-
--


Rs.16,500/-

Rs.44,000/-
4

Rs.88,000/-

--

--

--
4. Loss of dependency Rs.22,30,200/- Rs.31,24,872/-
Total Rs.23,80,200/- Rs.32,89,872/-
Difference amount Rs.9,09,672/-

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024



42. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part .
ii. The judgment and award passed by Tribunal in
MVC No.227/2022 is modified to the aforesaid
extent.

iii. The appellants/petitioners shall be entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.9,09,672/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of claim petition till its realization.

iv. Out of the enhanced compensation amount,
Rs.50,000/- each shall be released to the
petitioner Nos.2 and 3; and petitioner No.1 is
entitled for remaining compensation amount.
The deposit and release of amount insofar as
petitioner No.1 is concerned shall be as per
the order of the Tribunal.

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10562
MFA No. 200156 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030123222024


iv. The respondent – Corporation is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation within six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment.
vi. Draw modified decree accordingly.



Sd/-
(BRUNGESH M)
JUDGE




BL
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17
CT:SI