- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7708 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH, S/O. LATE GOVINDA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT. RACHIAHNA DODDI, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.G. RAVISHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFCIE, KSRTC, DEPOT, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. 2. RAM REDDY. M, S/O. M.C. OBALA REDDY, MAJOR, BEML LAYOUT, BANGARPET ROAD, KOLAR-563 101. 3. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.105A/107A, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA FOR R1; Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.07.2015 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.9.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.3011/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in *MVC NO.3011/2008 dated 15.09.2011 by the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge and Member MACT, Bengaluru, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 23.02.2008 at about 8.00 pm., when the claimant was riding the motor cycle *along with pillion rider one Kumar, near Chowdahalli Cross, Sathnur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, at that time, driver of respondent No.*1 vehicle i.e., KSRTC bus came in rash and *Corrected vide court order dated: 24/06/2025. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 negligent manner by driving the said vehicle and dashed against the claimant’s riding vehicle. Due to the impact, the claimant and said Kumar fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to General Hospital, Channapatna for treatment. The Tribunal had granted the compensation of an amount of Rs.88,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 25,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of earning during the laid up period : Rs. 8,000/- 4. Towards disability : Rs. 20,000/- 5. Loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 88,000/- 4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.88,000/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence had held that the accident had happened because of the negligence driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus. When it comes to the *Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated: 24/06/2025. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 liability, the Tribunal had observed that the KSRTC is not the owner of the bus and the owner of the bus is one M. Ramana Reddy. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company had insured the said bus which was given on hire to the KSRTC. The bus was in the custody of the KSRTC as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal gives a finding that respondent No.1 has not led any oral evidence to prove the defence taken on the written statement. Even the insurance company has also not produced any material before this Court to show that KSRTC is liable to pay the compensation. Admittedly, both the claimants are third party to the insurance. So far as, liability of respondent Nos.1 and 3 in case of agreement between the KSRTC and the owner of the vehicle is concerned and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailasha Nath Kothari and others1 and the Tribunal held that the KSRTC alone is liable to pay the compensation. Then, the Tribunal had also relied on the subsequent ruling reported in judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of United India Insurance company Ltd. Vs. 11997(7) SCC 481 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 Santro Devi and others2 and also another judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Sunil Kumar and others3 and the Tribunal had held that both the insurance company as well as the KSRTC are liable to pay the compensation which is apportioned at 50% each on both of them. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable. Under the heads of pain and agony and for transport and other heads, the amount granted is not reasonable. Further, the interest awarded at the rate of 6% is also on the lower side. It is submitted that 14% disability was not considered and no amount is granted for loss of future income. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/ Insurance Company submits that when the finding of the Tribunal at issue No.1 is that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 22009(1) SCC 558 3MFA.NO.8431/2007 DATED 14.01.2011 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 KSRTC bus, in that case the Tribunal when it comes to the liability ought not to have held that both the KSRTC and the Insurance company are liable to pay the compensation at 50% each. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ KSRTC submits that in the light of the law laid down in UPSRTC Vs. Kulsum and others4 when the particular vehicle is on hire with the KSRTC and which is insured with the insurance company, in those cases, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel further submits that though the KSRTC has not preferred any appeal and the said finding of the Court is contrary to law. 9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the contention of the insurance company and the KSRTC, both of them submit that the appeal is not preferred by them. Still this Court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction comes to the conclusion that the order is erroneous can interfere with the law. According to the learned counsel for the insurance company, when the Court gives a finding that the fault is on the KSRTC, 4 2011(8) SCC 142 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 the insurance company is not liable. Learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC submits that when the vehicle is hired by the KSRTC and it is insured with the insurance company, in the light of the settled law, in Kulsum’s case stated supra, still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. This Court has perused the order of the Court. There is no dispute that the accident has occurred because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC and admittedly, as per the material placed before this Court and as per the observation of the Court, it is stated that the vehicle is on hire with the KSRTC and the said vehicle is insured by the insurance company. In that view of the matter, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Kulsum’s case stated supra, the insurance company alone is liable to pay the compensation. 10. Coming to the enhancement of the compensation, the claimant had sustained *CLW 2X-1cm above the right ankle, pain, swelling, deformity of right ankle and the petitioner has suffered disability of 14% to whole body. Considering that, under the head of pain and sufferings, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- and no interference is called for. Coming to the loss of income during *Page No.7 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated: 24/06/2025. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 the laid up period, according to the claimant, he is earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and this accident had happened in the year 2008 and there was no evidence placed before the Court, considering the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority, this Court is taking the income of the claimant at an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month, the loss of income during the laid up period would comes to an amount of Rs.15,500/-. Then coming to the disability, the doctor had deposed that there is 14% disability to the whole body, but the Tribunal holds that it is assessed after three years what is the disability as on that day has to be considered by the Court and considering the 14% disability, towards loss of future income would come to an amount of Rs.1,36,080/- (4,500X12X18X14/100). As the claimant was admitted in the hospital for more than 30 days as inpatient, towards nourishment, attendant and transport charges, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Considering the disability of 14%, towards loss of amenities, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. 11. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 AND ANOTHER5, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. 12. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensatio n awarded by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 25,000/- 50,000/- 2. Medical expenses : Rs. 15,000/- 15,000/- 3. Loss of earning during the laid up period (4500X3) : Rs. 8,000/- 15,500/- 4. Towards disability : Rs. 20,000/- - 5. Loss of future income (4500X12X18X14/100) : Rs. - 1,36,080/- 6. Food, Nourishment, attendant and transport charges : Rs. - 30,000/- 7. Loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000/- 30,000/- 8. Legal expenses : Rs. - 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 88,000/- 2,86,580/- All together, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.2,86,580/-. Accordingly, the appeal arising of MVC.No.3011/2008 is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.88,000/- to Rs.2,86,580/-. The compensation amount shall be paid by respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 5 (2014) 11 SCC 178 *Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated: 24/06/2025. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15040 MFA No. 7708 of 2012 i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) Respondent No.3 - Insurance company alone is liable to pay the compensation. It shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12