- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101584 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/F-1060, SANDUR DEPO, HOSAPETE DIVISION, HOSAPETE BALLARI, REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. ALLABU WIFE OF PEERA SAB 42 YEARS, COOLIE, R/O. SUSHIL NAGAR, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAM NAGAR 2ND CROSS, TALUR ROAD, BALLARI-583211. 2. RAMAPPA SON OF KRISHNAPPA 37 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE KSRTC BUS BEARING REG.NO. KA-34/F-1060 SANDUR DEPO, BALLARI DIVISION R/O. SUSHIL NAGAR, SANDUR TALUK BALLARI DISTRICT-583211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADV FOR R1, SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADV FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.767/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-II, BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,99,340/- WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’, for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 21.01.2017 passed in MVC No.767/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 04.09.2013 at about 7:30 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding towards flour mill by walk for grinding the jowar near the accident spot, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.34.F-1060 came from the Hosapete side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 3. The driver of the bus, though appeared through counsel, did not file any statement of objections. 4. The Corporation filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the bus was driving the bus cautiously and in a moderate speed. It is contended that the petitioner suddenly came running from left side of the bus, and in order to avoid the accident, the driver of the bus immediately applied brakes and in the event, the front glass of the bus was broken and the petitioner due to fear fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner to substantiate his case examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P.11. In rebuttal the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 7. The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,99,340/- to the petitioner, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Corporation to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The Corporation aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the Corporation and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 16% which is on the higher side. He submits that PW.2 is not the treated Doctor. The Tribunal ought to have taken 1/3rd of the disability assessed by PW.2. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future income and under the other heads - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 are on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and also submits that PW.2 is the Doctor, who has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and has assessed the disability at 16% which is just and proper. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 14. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident. The petitioner to prove the disability, examined the Doctor as PW.2. Admittedly, he is not the treated doctor. Further the Tribunal under the head of loss of future income has awarded Rs.1,72,800/- which is on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 higher side. This Court considering the evidence of PW.2, re- assess the disability of the petitioner at 10%. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the petitioner has not produced any income proof, therefore, this Court takes the notional income of the petitioner, as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2013, hence, the notional income is Rs.7,000/- per month as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority and the disability is at 10%. Thus, this Court re-assess the compensation under the head of loss of future income at Rs.1,26,000/- i.e., (Rs.7,000/-x12x15x10%) as against Rs.1,72,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of Rs.6,000/- is awarded towards the laid up period by the Tribunal, since Rs.7,000/- per month is taken as the notional income, the loss of income during the laid up period is reassessed at Rs. 7,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads, is just and proper and do not call for interference. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,53,540/-, as follows: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Compensation re-assessed by this Court Rs. 1 Pain and agony 50,000/- 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses, attendant and nourishment 10,540/- 10,540/- 3 Loss of income during treatment period 6,000/- 7,000/- 4 Loss of future earning capacity 1,72,800/- 1,26,000/- 5 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 10,000/- 6 loss of future prospects 50,000/- 50,000/- TOTAL 2,99,340/- 2,53,540/- 15. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the reduced compensation of Rs. 2,53,540/- as against Rs.2,99,340/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation is reduced by Rs.45,800/-. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 21.01.2017 passed in MVC No.767/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari, is hereby - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11985 MFA No. 101584 of 2017 modified. The petitioner is entitled for reduced compensation Rs.2,53,540/- as against Rs.2,99,340/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. iii. The Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB