- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 101408 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: ADEPPA S/O GANDEMMA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS A DRIVER, R/O: VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, NEAR MM HALLI, HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARI-573274. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHIMAPPA SHIVALINGAPPA AINAPUR, S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER NEKRTC BUS BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/F-508, R/O: SINDHOGI VILLAGE, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126. 2. THE DIVISION CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, HOSAPETE DEPOT, HOSAPETE, BALLARI-573274. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.510/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HOSAPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 9th September 2016, passed in MVC No.510 of 2013 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospete (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 13.03.2012 at about 4:30 p.m, when he was coming on his motorbike bearing registration No.KA-35/L-753 met with an accident near Kondanyakanahalli cross, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA- 34/F-508 by its driver. As a result of which the claimant sustained compound comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg. It is his further case that he has spent more than - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses. He was driver by profession and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month along with Rs.300/- per day batta and due to the injuries sustained in the accident he has been suffering from permanent disability. For these reasons, he prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.38,66,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is the Controller of NEKRTC appeared and filed their respective written statements. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have contended that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the claimant. Driver of the bus was not at all responsible for the accident. Amount claimed is excessive. On these grounds, it sought dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its determination: “1. Does the petitioner proves that on 13.03.2012 at about 4:30 p.m. he was riding a vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-35/L-753 and when it reached near Kondanayakanahalli cross, respondent No.1 being the driver of KSRTC bus Bg. No.KA-34/F-508 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 motorbike as a result of which petitioner suffered injuries as stated in the petition? 2. Does the 2nd respondent proves that, the accident is due to the reasons stated para 12(a) and (b) of written statement? 3. Does the petitioner proves that, he is entitled for compensation, if so, how much, from whom? 4. What order or award? 6. To prove the case, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and also examined the Doctor as PW2 and got marked 95 documents at Exs.P1 to P95. On the other hand, respondent No.1-driver was examined himself as RW1. Respondents have not produced any documents. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciating the entire evidence available on record, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Further, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award, partly allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.3,14,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 from the date of petition till realization, on the following heads: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.70,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- 4. loss of income during laid-up period Rs.12,000/- 5. loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability Rs1,72,800/- TOTAL Rs.3,14,800/- 8. The Tribunal assessed the loss of future earnings due to permanent disability by taking the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month, applied the multiplier as 16, assessed the age of the claimant as 33 years as on the date of accident and also taken permanent disability at 10% to the whole body. 9. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant submits that, the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the claimant properly and disability assessed by the Tribunal is also incorrect. The Tribunal did not award adequate compensation under all the heads. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is also on the higher side. However, the respondents have not filed any appeal against the said award. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. The facts of the accident and the claimant sustained the injuries in the accident are not in dispute. Respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the only question that would arise for my consideration is: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 “whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?” 14. My answer to the said question is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: 15. The claimant has sustained fracture of both bones of right leg. He was driver by profession and he was said to be earning batta in addition to the monthly salary. He was admitted to the Hospital as an inpatient for about eight days. Even after discharge from the Hospital, he may not be in a position to attend to his duties. He would have taken follow up treatments frequently by visiting to the Hospital. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation towards incidental expenses, attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges etc., it needs to be awarded. 16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head loss of amenities in a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is highly inadequate, which needs to be enhanced. The - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period only for a period of two months. The Tribunal at paragraph No.15 of the judgment assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month, for assessment of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. However, for assessment of compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period, the salary of the claimant was considered at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is incorrect. The Tribunal should have awarded compensation by taking the salary as Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant had sustained frature of both bones of right leg. Therefore, it may not be possible for him to attend to the regular work at least for a period of three to four months, which needs to be considered while awarding compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period. 17. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 of income due to permanent disability are proper and it does not call for any interference. 18. For the aforesaid discussion, following amounts of compensation are recalculated and awarded: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.70,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/- 4. loss of income during laid-up period Rs.36,000/- 5. Attendant and conveyance charges special diet etc., Rs.20,000/- 6. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability Rs1,72,800/- TOTAL Rs.3,78,800/- Less: amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Rs.3,14,800/- ENHANCED COMPENSATION Rs.64,000/- 19. The claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.64,000/-. 20. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 9th September 2016, passed in MVC No.510 of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963 MFA No. 101408 of 2018 2013 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospete is modified. (iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.64,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, on the enhanced amount of compensation. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (v) Deposit and release of the amount as ordered by the Tribunal shall hold good for the compensation awarded in this appeal. (vi) The Registry to send a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Tribunal. (vii) The Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP / CT: AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34