- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2671 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND LALBAGH MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574214 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK NARAYAN NAYAK.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.S.RAGHAVENDRA S/O SEENAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT KARNETHODI HOUSE ODILNALA POST & VILLAGE BELTHANGADY D.K.DISTRICT - 574214 2. SRI.H.B.LOKAYYA S/O H.B.BORAYYA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 BOLANGADY HOUSE PANEMANGALURU POST AND VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK D K DISTRICT - 574214 3. SRI.RAMANA GOWDA GOWDER S/O LATE YALLANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS GANGOOR HOUSE & VILLAGE CHITARAGI POST HUNAGUNDA TALUK BAGALKOTE DIST - 587101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; R.3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D 20.12.2023 ) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.452/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE M.A.C.T. AND I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,42,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant - Corporation calling in question the judgment and award dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 02.11.2017 passed in MVC No.452/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mangaluru, D.K., (for short 'Tribunal') allowing the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.3,42,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the injuries suffered in the accident. 2. The date of incident, involvement of the vehicle and injuries suffered by the respondent - claimant are not in dispute. The only dispute, as per the Corporation, is with respect of the contributory negligence on the injured, which, according to the Corporation, is not considered by the Tribunal. 3. Heard Sri.Ashok Narayan Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant - Corporation and Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is served and unrepresented. Vide order dated 20.12.2023, notice of this appeal on respondent No.2 is held sufficient. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 4. On two grounds, the appellant - Corporation is in appeal i.e., Firstly, the liability on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to fasten the contributory negligence on the Injured, who was the Driver of the Car also responsible for the incident and secondly, on the ground of quantum contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and requires re-consideration. 5. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Ashok Narayan Nayak, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of the Driver - R.W.1, wherein he has clearly stated that though the bus was moving on its side observing all the traffic rules, the Driver of the Car - injured herein came in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the Car and dashed against the bus going on the wrong side of the road. The Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect of the matter and fastened the entire liability on the Driver of the Corporation Bus only on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 the ground that the police have registered case against the Driver so also filed the charge sheet. 6. So far as the compensation is concerned, it is stated that for simple fractures to hip joint, Nasal Bone, right femur, posterior hip dislocation and posterior acetabulum wall facture, the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation of ₹.3,42,500/-. A sum of ₹.1,55,000/- awarded under the medical head is highly exorbitant as the same is without prescription. The Tribunal has not properly considered these aspects and sought to allow the appeal. 7. Refuting the submissions of Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastri, learned counsel submits that the accident was of the year 2016, the income ought to have been taken as ₹.9,500/- instead of ₹.7,500/- taken by the Tribunal. In that event of the matter, the ‘Loss of Future Income’ requires to be enhanced. So far as ‘Loss of Income During Laid Up Period’ is also required to be considered in view of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 the higher income than the one taken by the Tribunal. So also, he contends that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head ‘Loss of Amenities’. With this, Sri.G.Ravishankar Shastri, learned counsel, with all fairness, submits that though the claimant has not filed cross-objection or cross-appeal, the Court may consider the same under the principle of just compensation. 8. To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Branch of this Court in M.F.A No.5729/2014, in the case of Sachidananda Chatra vs. The Branch Manager and others in MFA No.5729/2014 dated 05.05.2021. Wherein this Court having regard to the power conferred on the Court under Section 107 read with Section 151 of CPC, Under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC., and under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC., has held that the Appellate Court can consider the case of the Claimant for enhancement of the compensation in the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle calling in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 question the liability fastened on the compensation. With this, sought to enhance the compensation. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, perused the entire appeal papers as well as the Trial Court Record and the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant, the questions that would arise for consideration are as follows; 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the entire liability on the Corporation to pay compensation in view of the rash and negligent held against Driver of the offending Bus while answering Issue No.1? 2. Whether the respondent – claimant has made out a case for enhancement of compensation though he has not filed any appeal on the principle of just compensation? My answer to the above points for consideration are (i) in affirmative and (ii) partly in affirmative for the following; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 REASONS 10. Though the Driver has been examined and has produced certain records, the Corporation has not produced any other independent evidence to show that there is a rash and negligence on the part of the Injured in causing the accident. A perusal of the spot sketch and other documents produced by the claimant in support of his claim would clearly show that it is the Driver of the bus, who was rash and negligent while driving bus, reason for the accident, causing injuries and resulting in disability to the respondent No.1 – claimant. The Driver of the bus in the cross-examination has clearly admitted that he has not further admitted that he has not lodged any complaint against the driver of the Car and he has not challenged the charge sheet filed by the police. These are the aspects, which have been considered by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1. This Court finds no infirmities in the reasons assigned by the Tribunal while answering issue - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 No.1 in the Affirmative. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered against the Corporation. 11. So far as point No.2 is concerned, benefit extended by this Court in the appeal relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 in Sachidananda Chatra (cited supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the same may be applied in the case on hand. The claimant has suffered multiple fracture injuries to Nasal Bone and right lower limb. As per the Disability Certificate and the evidence of the Doctor, there is limping on right side, restriction of right hip movement all direction, difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged and shortening of right lower limb by 1 c.m. 12. Respondent No.1, who was working as an electrician, was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. as contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Though the Doctor has stated the disability to an extent of 20%, the Tribunal has taken at 6% and awarded compensation. Considering the avocation of the claimant, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 which requires laborious work, the disability is taken at 10%. The compensation awarded under other heads appears to be on the lower side except medical expenses. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that having regard to the judgment in the case of Sachidananda Chatra (cited supra) exercising power under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC., re-determine the compensation under the following heads on the principle of just compensation, having regard to the beneficial legislation as under: 1. Pain and Suffering ₹.85,000/- 2. Medical Expenses ₹.1,55,000/- 3. Attendant Charges, food, extra nourishment, conveyance charges (inpatient for a period of eight days) ₹.50,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period (₹.9,500/- x 3) ₹.28,500/- 5. Loss of future income due to disability (₹.9,500/-x12x16x10/100) ₹.1,82,400/- 6. Loss of future medical expenses ₹.8,000/- 7. Loss of amenities ₹.40,000/- Total ₹.5,48,900/- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 13. In all, respondent No.1 – claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,48,900/- as against for a sum of Rs.3,42,500/-. The award passed by the Tribunal enhanced on re-determining the higher income is for the reason that the Tribunal has taken the income at ₹.7,500/- for an accident, which has occurred in the year 2016, whereas the income fixed under the chart is ₹.9,500/-. For an electrician, involving laborious work. Though there is limb disability to the tune of 20% but impairs his earning capacity. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion in taking it as 10% instead of 6% taken by the Tribunal. In view of the higher income taken, the loss of income during laid up period is also enhanced by another sum of ₹.6,000/-. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the appellant – Corporation is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 (ii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Trial Court for disbursement. (iii) In view of exercising power under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,42,500/- to Rs.5,48,900/-. The re-determined amount of Rs.5,48,900/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the judgment of the Tribunal and from this day onwards till realization. (iv) The balance re-determined compensation along with interest at 6% p.a. shall be deposited by the Corporation before the concerned Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to interest portion stated at Sl. No.(iii). (v) Upon deposit, the entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41622 MFA No. 2671 of 2018 – respondent No.1 on proper identification. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6