- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2665 OF 2021(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING NAMELY THE KSRTC, THE VEHICLE OF WHICH HAS BEEN INSURANCE EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 146(2) AND (3) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY THEIR ODER NO.HTD.TMI 106/68, VALID DATE 1-04-1968 TO 31-12-2018, KSRTC MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA, NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VADIVELU, S/O. ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, R/O. SIDLIPURA VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 2. SRI B.S.GIRISH S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS KSRTC BUS DRIVER, BILL NO.1590, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 K.R. PET DIVISION, R/O MANDYA DIVISION, BASVANAHALLI VILLAGE, AKKIHEBBALLA, SOMANATHAPURA POST, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS Miscellaneous First Appeal IS FILED under section 173(1) OF Motor vehicles ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.439/2019 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 31.12.2020 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, sitting at Bhadravathi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.439/2019. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 3. It is the case of the claimant that the claimant was a pillion rider along with one Manjunath. When they were proceeding slowly from Bhadravathi to reach Sidlipura village on N.H.206, B.H.Road near M.C.Halli, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.11.F.0483 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorbike, which was ridden by one Manjunath, who died on the spot. Consequently, the claimant, who was a pillion rider, sustained injuries to his face, head, fractured to both legs and other injuries. The claimant was an inpatient and undertook treatment. Due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the claimant filed the claim petition against the Corporation and the driver of the vehicle. 3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 3.2 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration. 3.3 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P20. On the other hand, respondents examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R9. 3.4 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,22,776/- with interest @ 6% per annum (excluding Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its realisation and also held that respondent No.2-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 3.5 The Corporation, being dissatisfied with the judgment and award, is before this Court challenging the same on several grounds urged in the appeal. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-Corporation that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding exorbitant compensation. It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellant- Corporation that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, due to which the accident occurred. The other contentions taken by the learned counsel for appellant-Corporation are with regard to the width of the road and there being no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus, it was the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, who was in the middle of the road and attributed negligence on behalf of the rider of the motorcycle. Be that as it may, in the present case on hand, the claimant is not the rider, whereas he is a pillion rider. The rider of the motorcycle suffered injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 and the legal representatives of the deceased have preferred a claim petition. The same was questioned by the Corporation in MFA No.3914/2020 which came to be disposed off without interference except with regard to the reduction of the interest from 7% per annum to 6% per annum. Therefore, nothing much would survive for the appellant-Corporation to take contrary stand. 5. Having heard learned counsel for appellant- Corporation, a short point that would arise for consideration is that: "Whether the tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation?" 6. The tribunal, after consideration of the materials placed before the Court, has taken the income at Rs.9,000/- per month and the age of the claimant was 28 years at the time of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '17'. The tribunal assessing the disability at 10% to the whole body, arrived at total - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 compensation of Rs.5,22,776/- along with interest at 6% per annum. 7. Though several grounds are urged by the learned counsel for appellant-Corporation that the income taken and the loss of income during the laid-up period calculated at six months are exorbitant, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the same for the reason that even according to the notional income chart, the income for the accident of the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/-, whereas the tribunal has taken income at Rs.9,000/-. However, the same would be adjusted towards the exorbitant compensation awarded by the tribunal. The interest component awarded by the tribunal at 6% per annum also does not call for interference. Under the circumstance, there is no ground for interference in the present appeal. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed; - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:158 MFA No. 2665 of 2021 ii) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant upon proper verification; iii) The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith; iv) Though notice to the respondent-claimant is held sufficient, no further order is required on service of notice to the respondent-claimant; v) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN