- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8973 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8972 OF 2018 (MV-DM) IN MFA No.8973/2018: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OWNER CUM INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND OF K.S.R.T.C. BUS NO.KA 09 F 5187 SARIGE BHAVAN K H DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S MANJUNATHA S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BANAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK NOW RESIDING AT MOTHAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. N S BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.984/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANDYA, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO. 8972/2018: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OWNER CUM INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND OF K.S.R.T.C BUS NO.KA-09-F-5187 SARIGE BHAVAN, K.H.DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. N KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT NAGAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF MOTHAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK ...RESPONDENT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 (BY SRI. N.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.983/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MANDYA, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT The KSRTC – Corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal is in these appeals. These appeals calling in question the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC Nos.983/2015 and 984/2015 dated 19.07.2018, passed by the Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya. 2. Though the appeals are listed for ‘Admission’, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, appeals are taken up for final disposal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 IN MFA No.8973/2018: 3. This appeal is by the Corporation calling in question the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by one Sri.S.Manjunatha in MVC No.984/2015. 4. Sri.N.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that in the accident, the respondent -injured had sustained following injuries, which are extracted by the Tribunal in page No.15 while discussing issue No.2:- 1. “Lacerated wound measuring 2 x 1 cm on left eyebrow; 2. Lacerated wound measuring 1 cm on left side of nose; 3. Abrasion on left upper lip; 4. Tenderness and swelling on left upper chest near clavicle; 5. Other injuries all over the body” 5. As per Ex.P.6 – wound certificate, all the injuries are simple in nature. He further submitted that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 Tribunal without properly considering the materials placed on record, awarded global compensation of Rs.50,000/-, along with interest at 9%.p.a, is on the higher side when compared to the injuries sustained and the expenses incurred by the injured respondent. With this, he seeks to allow the appeal and set aside or modify the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 6. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.N.S.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – claimant submits that the appellant has suffered several injuries. Considering the date and year of the accident i.e., 2014, he submits that if re-determination of compensation is allowed, it would be more than the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As such, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and award and the materials placed on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 8. As per the records, Exs.P.9 and 10 clearly shows that appellant has incurred Medical expenses to the tune of Rs.6,740/- rounded off to Rs.7,000/- Considering the fact that the appellant has sustained four simple injuries, if a sum of Rs.5,000/- each is awarded, it comes to Rs.20,000/-. As per notional income fixed for the year ‘2014’ by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the appellant is to be taken at Rs.8,500/- per month. If the claimant has taken one month bed rest, a sum of Rs.8,500/- would be awarded towards 'loss of income during laid up period' and in so far as amenities is concerned, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, claimant is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'. Hence, in all a sum of Rs.50,500/- (Rs.20,000 + 7,000 + 8,500 + 15,000) would comes on re-determination. Hence, the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.50,000/- is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 IN MFA NO.8972/2018:- 9. This appeal is by the Corporation calling in question the award of compensation for the damages caused to the vehicle i.e., Tata Ace Tempo bearing No.KA- 11-9581. 10. Sri.N.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal without properly considering the material placed on record, relying on Ex.P.8 - Quotation, Exs.P.9 and 10 - cash bills issued by Sri Siddappaji Tinkaring Works and Benz Automobiles and considering Exs.P.11 to 19, which are the photographs of damaged vehicle, produced by the owner of the vehicle, awarded compensation of Rs.66,140/- with 9% p.a. He has submitted that the accident caused and involvement of both the vehicles and injury sustained by the inmate of the vehicle Sri.Manjunath are not disputed. The accident as per record has taken place on 16.12.2014, which is clear from Exs.P.1 and P.2, the FIR and the complaint, wherein, the driver of the Tata Ace Goods Vehicle bearing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 registration No.KA-11-9581 stated that the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-09/F-5187 came from hind side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Goods Vehicle causing damage to the vehicle, so also, loss of vegetables to an extent of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants stresses upon the date of accident, which is 16.12.2014, which is clear from the complaint as well as FIR and even all the other documents filed by the Police which are part of the investigation. He further has stated that, Ex.P.4- Motor Vehicle Accident Report wherein, the officer who has examined the vehicle has clearly stated that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Insofar as the vehicle bearing No.KA-11-9581, the damages stated in the Motor Vehicle Accident Report at Ex.P.4 are (1) Front left side wheel damaged, (2) Rear door damaged, (3) Both side tail lamps damaged. Except that, there are no other damages noted in the vehicle report. However, as per the photographs produced, it - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 shows that there are severe damages caused to the vehicle on the left side door, damages to front portion of the vehicle as well as the damages caused to the left body railings of the vehicle. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further taken this Court to Exs.P.8 and P.9, which are the Quotation and Cash/Credit Invoice for Rs.64,600/-. However, both the Exs.P.8 and P.9 are dated 19.03.2014 and the Invoice Bill is dated 30.05.2014. The Quotation as well as Invoice bill does not coincides with the damages noticed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector in his report at Ex.P.4. 13. On this, he has submitted, the bills and photographs produced by the owner of the vehicle are concerned to the date earlier to the accident. The Tribunal without properly considering the same, mechanically accepted the Quotation rates and granted Rs.64,600/- as compensation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 14. Sri N.S.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-owner of the vehicle, on query, accepted that the date in Exs.P.8 and P.9 are 19.03.2014 i.e., much prior to the accident, so also, the damages to the vehicle are not coinciding with the damages noticed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector report produced at Ex.P.4. 15. Having heard the learned counsels, I have perused the impugned order and the documents exhibited on record that is, police record as well as the record produced by the owner of the vehicle. The record clearly shows two dates, in all the police records including the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report at Ex.P.4 the date of accident shown as 16.12.2014, whereas the documents produced by the owner of the vehicle showing the quotation for the damages caused to the vehicle as well as cash bill of Rs.64,600/- which he has alleged to have paid to the concerned was dated 19.03.2014. 16. The Tribunal has not at all considered these crucial documents and failed to notice the dates on the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 exhibits and mechanically considered the case put forth by the owner of the vehicle while discussing at page No.15 on Issue No.2, in MVC No.983/2015. This clearly shows that the Tribunal has not at all gone through the records. 17. Under these circumstances, it is manifestly clear that the owner of the vehicle tried to place the bills for the damage, which was caused earlier to the accident and tried to claim unjustly, which is not the spirit of law and amounts to unjust enrichment. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial but the Act cannot be extended to the person who has misused the provisions of law by placing document, which are not coinciding with the real incident. 18. Under these circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation for the damages is not sustainable in law and requires interference, at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 ORDER (i) The appeal in MFA No.8972/2018 is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 19.07.2018 in MVC No.983/2015 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM., Mandya is hereby set aside and the claim petition filed by the owner of the vehicle is dismissed. (iii) The amount in deposit in MFA No.8973/2018 be transferred to concerned Tribunal for disbursement. (iv) The appellant-Corporation shall deposit balance of the amount along with accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, in MFA No.8973/2018. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:16100 MFA No. 8973 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 8972 of 2018 (v) The amount deposited by the Corporation in MFA No.8972/2018 shall be released in favour of the Corporation on proper identification. (vi) Under the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH – Paragraph Nos.1 to 9 PSJ – Paragraph Nos.10 to 18