Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramappa vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 17 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15714
MFA No. 1480 of 2020
HC-KAR
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1480 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMAPPA
S/O LATE SOMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. ROPITH K R
S/O SRI RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KADEMANUGANAHALLI VILLAGE
(KIKKERIKATTE) PANCHAVALLI POST,
HANAGODU POST,
HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105.
APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
SHARADAVANI
B DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC
Location: High
Court of PUTTUR DIVISION
Karnataka MUKRUMPADY PUTTUR
D.K. - 574 202
NOTICE THROUGH
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU - 570 015.
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. F.S. DABALI.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15714
MFA No. 1480 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.30.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.327/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed in MVC.No.327/2018 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in the Court of Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. Sri. Padmanabha Kedilaya V, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the income of the -3- NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, as the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed a error in deducting compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') immediately after the accident, which is impermissible. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in deducting 50% towards the personal and living expense of the deceased. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the note published in the website of the KSRTC for the passengers for creation of the accident relief fund trust, decision of this Court in the case of The Managing Director, KSRTC, Kalaburagi vs Kerappa and another1. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri. F.S. Dabali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation, vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that the claimants themselves have claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.400/- per day and failed to produce any evidence to that effect. Hence, the assessment of the income by the Tribunal is just and proper. It 1 MFA.No.201208/2024 DD 12.03.2025 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR is submitted that the payment of compensation by the Corporation immediately after the accident is an amount of interim compensation and the same is required to be deducted from the adjudicated compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the assessed income towards the personal and living expense of the deceased as the claimant was the sole dependent i.e., her husband. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and another V.s Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Manager, National Insurance Company V.s T. Chandranaika3 and in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd,. represented by Senior Divisional Manager V.s Sri. David .T and another 4. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material on record. 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 2018 ACJ 2095 4 ILR 2012 Kar 2859 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR
6. The only point that arise for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is sustainable under law or calls for any interference?"
7. The above point is answered in the affirmative for the following reasons:
a) The husband and son of the deceased have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In order to prove the claim, appellant No.1 examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 11 and the respondent examined RW1.
The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record proceeded to award a total compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- by deducting Rs.3,00,000/- as interim compensation paid by the Corporation. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-, considered her age as 66 years, applied '5' multiplier and deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses, on the ground that appellant No.1 being the husband is the sole dependent. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR
b) Insofar as seeking for higher compensation in this appeal is concerned, it is to be noticed that the appellant has failed to produce any acceptable evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the income. The appellant claimed that she was earning Rs.400/- per day, the Tribunal assessed her income at Rs.7,000/- per month. Admittedly no legally acceptable evidence was placed except the oral evidence of the husband of the deceased. In my considered view, the income of the deceased is required to be re-assessed notionally by considering the notional chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the unskilled labour. The Legal Service Authority has assessed the income for the year 2018 as Rs.12,500/- per month which is required to be considered in the present case. The assessment of the income by the Legal Services Authority to the unskilled labour and the said notional income is assessed, taking into account the wages paid to the unskilled labour, cost of living and many other factors. Hence, interest of justice would be met if the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month.
c) Though, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was 53 years and she has -7- NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR produced the ration card to substantiate her age as Ex.P11. In my considered view, the ration card cannot be considered as a proof of age. Hence, her age is rightly assessed by the Tribunal as 66 years and applied '5' as a multiplier which does not call for any modification.
d) Furthermore, the contention of the Corporation is that the Tribunal was justified in deducting 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. I am of the considered view that, the said contention and the finding of the Tribunal to that effect is required to be interfered with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) has held that in case of a bachelor the deduction towards the personal living expenses would be 50% as the bachelor has a tendency to spend more on himself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in case of a married person, where the dependents are more than 2 to 3, the deduction should be 1/3rd. For easy reference paragraph Nos.30 and 31 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted herein below:
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR Chandra5, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one- fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father."
e) The joint reading of the aforesaid two paragraphs makes it very clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that, if the deceased is a bachelor the deduction should be 50% and the said reasoning is based on the further reasoning that the bachelor would have a tendency to spend more amount on himself. Keeping in mind the said reasoning, I 5 (1996) 4 SCC 362 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR am of the considered view that, in the cases where the deceased is succeeded by a spouse then the appropriate deduction would be 1/3rd and not 50%. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the considered view that the appropriate deduction in the case on hand would be 1/3rd and not 50%.
f) Insofar as the deduction of Rs.3,00,000/- by the Tribunal as interim compensation paid by the Corporation is concerned, it is not in dispute between the parties that the Corporation immediately after the accident has paid Rs.3,00,000/-, though it is claimed as interim compensation. It is required to be noticed that the said amount cannot be termed as a interim compensation and is not available to be deducted from the entitlement of the compensation of the claimant for the simple reason that, admittedly the deceased who was traveling in the respondent - Corporation bus has paid Rs.1/- as a contribution/premium to the fund created by the Corporation to be paid to the accident victims. The note published by the respondent - Corporation for the purpose of creation of the accident relief fund trust is produced by the appellants counsel and the same is extracted herein below:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR "A NOTE ON KSRTC PASSENGERS ACCIDENT RELIEF FUND TRUST KSRTC Passengers Accident Relief Fund Trust was formed w.e.f. 01-06-2002 as a proactive measure to provide immediate financial relief to the legal heirs of the deceased passengers of KSRTC buses who die in road accidents.
Initially, contribution of Rs.1.00 was collected from each Passenger who purchases a ticket of Rs.20.00 and above, thereafter w.e.f. 11-06-2003, the slab has enhanced to Rs.40.00 once again w.e.f. 01-08- 2004, the slab has enhanced to Rs.100.00 later Collection of Accident Relief Fund Fee was totally discontinued w.e.f. 01-09-2008.
The Trust has restored collection of Rs.1 contribution from each of the passengers who travel with a fare ticket of Rs.100 and above w.e.f. 13/14.02.2014. The Trust has increased collection of ARF contribution from student passes from Rs.2.00 to Rs.5.00 per month w.e.f. 01.06.2016. Collection of Rs.50.00 per bus from casual contract is continued. In addition to this the Trust will earn Rs.1.80 crore interest per annum on long term investments Thus, the total annual Income of the Trust will be Rs. 9.50 crores.
Initially Rs.1.00 lakh was paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased passengers. From 01.08.2004, the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.2.00 lakhs, and from 01.09.2008, the compensation was further enhanced Rs.2.50 lakhs.
Again from 01.03.2017, compensation enhanced to Rs.3.00 lakhs. This amount is being paid in addition to MACT claims.
During the year 2018-19, the Trust has settled 25 death claims by paying an amount of Rs.73.00 lakhs as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. In addition, the Trust also paid an amount of Rs.234.00 lakhs towards medical treatment to the accidents victims. The Trust maintains 8 wreckers to carryout rescue operations and incurred Rs.53.29 lakhs towards maintenance of these vehicles. During the year, the Trust has spent Rs.192.00 lakhs
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR towards Construction of Passenger Amenities, Ladies Rest Rooms, Crew Amenities & Crew Rest Rooms at various Bus Stations of KSRTC."
g) The aforesaid note of the Corporation makes it very clear that, the amount paid from the accident relief fund by the trust created by it has nothing to do with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants. It is also to be noticed that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Managing Director, KSRTC, Kalaburagi (supra) considered the similar circumstance with regard to the deduction of amount as interim compensation and held the same to be impermissible.
h) I am of the considered view that when a person pays an amount to a statutory authority in form of a statutory levy, an independent statutory contract comes into existence between the said person and the State. The purchase of a ticket by the passenger along with the payment of additional levy confers a financial benefit on the dependents of the said person to claim the same out of the independent statutory contract. The said financial benefit is to be excluded by holding that it is an act of foresight by statutory compulsion by which the passenger entered into a statutory contract with the State,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR due to which the dependents have acquired the benefit. Hence, to allow the deduction of the amount paid by the Corporation under an independent statutory contract formed as a proactive measure to provide immediate financial relief to the legal heirs of the deceased passengers of the KSRTC buses who die in accidents and allow such a deduction to benefit the respondent- Corporation will be against public policy. This view also gains support from the decisions of High Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in the case of Himanchal Road Transportation Corporation v Arvind Singh Mann 6 and Bhanwri Bai and other v Union of India and Another 7 respectively. The aforesaid analysis makes a clear distinction between payment of compensation paid by the Corporation under a statutory contract and the compensation to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I am of the considered view, that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in deducting Rs.3,00,000/- as interim compensation, which is impermissible.
i) For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the compensation is required to be re-assessed as under: Loss of dependency (12,500 X 12 X 5 - 1/3) = Rs.5,00,000/-. 6 1991 ACJ 825 7 2009 ACJ 1319
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR
j) The appellants are the husband and son of the deceased and both are entitled to loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- with 10% escalation on the said amount, which would Rs.44,000/- x 2 =Rs.88,000/- as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., V.s Nanuram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others8, and the National Insurance Company V.s Pranay Sethi and Others9.
k) The appellants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- + 10% escalation under the heads of loss of estate as Rs.16,500/- and Rs.15,000/- + 10% escalation towards the transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as Rs.16,500/-.
8. Hence, the appellants would be entitled to modified compensation as under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of consortium 88,000/-
Loss of estate 16,500/-
Towards transportation and funeral expenses 16,500/-
Towards loss of dependency 5,00,000/-
Total 6,21,000/-
8
2018 ACJ 2782
9
AIR (2009) 6 SCC 121
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15714
MFA No. 1480 of 2020
HC-KAR
Thus, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,21,000/- as against Rs.3,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Tribunal, is modified to an extent that the appellants-claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,21,000/-
as against Rs.3,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
d) The respondent - Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15714 MFA No. 1480 of 2020 HC-KAR
f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14