- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200387 OF 2022 (MV-I) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201723 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.200387/2022: BETWEEN: SUDEEP @ SUDI @ SUDEER S/O NANU RATHOD @ LAMANI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O MANUR L.T., TQ. BASAVAN BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA, NOW RESIDING AT JALNAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 AND AWARD PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO. 868/2019 DATED 17.03.2021 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. IN MFA NO.201723/2021: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC, VIJAYAPUR DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYAPUR, THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY, ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADANA, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SUDEEP @ SUDI @ SUDEER S/O NANU RATHOD, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NO.1 R/O MANUR L.T., TQ. B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 312. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2021 PASSED BY THE I- ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO. 868/2019. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Even though these matters are slated for admission, the appeals are taken up for final disposal by consent of both the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.868/2019 dated 17.03.2021 by the learned I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VI, Vijayapura (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner as well as respondent- NEKRTC (for short, ‘the Corporation’) are before this Court in these appeals. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 17.05.2019 at about 10:40 a.m. the petitioner was the pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/EL-7173, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 which was ridden by his father-in-law. The said motorcycle while negotiating curve, was hit by the bus owned by the Corporation, bearing No.KA-38/F-808, which came from the opposite direction resulting in the petitioner falling down and sustaining fracture of shaft of the right femur at proximal 1/3rd and open type-II fracture of the right tibia. The petitioner was immediately shifted to the hospital and he was inpatient for 14 days. Claiming that the petitioner was a coolie, aged about 19 years at the time of the accident, sought adequate compensation from the respondent-Corporation. 5. The petition was resisted by the respondent- Corporation contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and there was no such negligence on the part of its driver, but the negligence was on part of the rider of the motorcycle. Inter alia it also disputed the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and termed the compensation as highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. Inter alia it also took - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 up the contention that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were also necessary parties to the petition. 6. After framing of issues, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the doctor, who assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to 12 were marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. 7. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- to the petitioner under following heads: Sl. No Heads Compensation in (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 2. Medical expenses incurred and future medical expenses, Attendant, Conveyance, Nourishing food and other incidental expenses 1,84,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period 4,200/- 4. Loss of future income on account or permanent disability 1,94,400/- 5. Loss of amenities, life comforts and expectancy of life 10,000/- Total 4,12,600/- 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 and the respondent-Corporation is before this Court contending that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the same has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. 9. Heard arguments of both sides. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, who is appellant in MFA No.201723/2021 would submit that, the Corporation had taken up the contention that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also necessary parties and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. He submits that the said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal in a proper manner. He defends the impugned judgment regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, even though feeble attempt is made to say that the compensation is on the higher side. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a coolie and the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 Tribunal has not properly assessed the functional disability of the petitioner. He contends that PW.2 has stated the disability of 35% and the Tribunal assessed at 9% which has no correlation with each other. He also submits that the compensation awarded under the remaining heads is also on the lower side and the same needs to be reassessed by this Court. 12. A careful perusal of the records would reveal that for the petitioner it was a case of composite negligence, but not a contributory negligence. Evidently the petitioner had no role to play in contributing any negligence in the accident as he was riding pillion. The Corporation though contended that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties, did not opt to invoke the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of CPC. If at all Corporation was aggrieved by non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle, nothing prevented it to file an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 13. So far as a petitioner is concerned, it was a case of composite negligence for him and he could have proceeded with anyone of the tortfeasors, which he chooses to be proper. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petition suffered from non-joinder of necessary party so far as the petitioner is concerned. 14. The judgment of the full bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh vs. Syed Munned Ahmad and Others1, which came to be reiterated by this Court in another full bench decision in the case of KSRTC vs. Arun @ Aravind and Others2, the law concerning the case of composite negligence lays down the concept of composite negligence. It is necessary to observe that both these decisions of the full bench of this Court were affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd3. Therefore, the appeal filed by the NEKRTC-Corporation is bereft of any merits so far as this contention is concerned. 1 1998 SCC Online Kar 603 2 2003 SCC Online Kar 715 3 (2015) 9 SCC 273 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 15. Coming to the quantum of the compensation amount, it is relevant to note that the petitioner suffered fracture of shaft of right femur at proximal 1/3rd and open type-II of fracture of the right tibia. He was operated on 17.05.2019 and discharged on 01.06.2019. PW.2 stated that there is a physical disability of 35%. 16. The physical disability stated by PW.2 has to be borne in mind while assessing the functional disability. The Tribunal considers functional disability at 9%, which appears to be on the lower side. In the considered opinion of this Court the functional disability of the petitioner is held at 13%. 17. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was a coolie, aged about 19 years. The age and occupation of the petitioner as evidenced from the records available are not in dispute, but what is in dispute is only the income of the petitioner. 18. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalath - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 prescribed notional income of Rs.13,250/- for the year 2019. In umpteen numbers of judgments this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the income of the petitioner, in the absence of any other cogent evidence has to be construed at Rs.13,250/- per month. Therefore, the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.3,72,060/- (Rs.13,250/- x 12 x 18 x 13%). 19. Consequently holding that the petitioner was unable to resume his work at least for a period of 3 months a sum of Rs.39,750/- (Rs.13,250/- x 3) is awarded to the petitioner. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the pain and suffering to the fact that there were two fractures it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under this head. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 21. The petitioner was inpatient for 14 days and therefore a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to him under the head of attendant, conveyance, food & nourishment, etc. 22. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 23. The compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses does not require any enhancement. 24. Thus, the petitioner is entered for a total compensation under following heads: Sl. No Heads Compensation in (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 2. Medical expenses 1,84,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period 39,750/- 4. Loss of future income on account or permanent disability Rs.3,72,060/- 5. Loss of amenities 30,000/- 6. Towards food, nourishment, conveyance, etc., charges 15,000/- Total 6,80,810/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal 4,12,600/- Enhancement 2,68,210/- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the Corporation is liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in-part and hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA No.201723/2021 is dismissed; (ii) The appeal filed by the appellant-claimant in MFA No.200387/2022 is allowed in-part; (iii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,68,210/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit; (iv) The respondent-NEKRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order; - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1722 MFA No. 200387 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201723 of 2021 (v) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered; (vi) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49 CT: AK