- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104377 OF 2019 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103467 OF 2019 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 104377 OF 2019 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, N.W.K.R.T.C. BELAGAVI, THROUGH THE DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC ATHANI DEPOT, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. MALLAPPA KUNDARNAD, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE/AGRICULTURE, (NOW NIL), R/O. JAKANAYAKANAKOPPA VILLAGE, TALUK. BAILHONGAL, NOW AT YARAZARVI VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. - RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI IN MVC NO.964/2017 DATED 03.06.2019 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 IN MFA NO. 103467 OF 2019 BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O. MALLAPPA KUNDARNAD, AGE 25 YEARS OCC: COOLIE/AGRICULTURE, (NOW NIL), R/O. JAKANAYAKANAKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, NOW AT YARAZARVI VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NWKRTC, BELAGAVI, THROUGH THE DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC ATHANI DEPOT, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. - RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION IN THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI IN M.V.C. NO.964/2017, DATED 03.06.2019 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) The owner of the bus, i.e., respondent-Corporation, filed appeal in M.F.A. No. 104377/2019 and claimant filed appeal in M.F.A. No. 103467/2019 challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 03.06.2019 in M.V.C. No. 964/2017 by the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge & AMACT, Savadatti. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 964/2017 and hence are taken up together for disposal. 3. The Corporation filed appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as fastening the entire liability on the Corporation. The claimant filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 4. The fact and the manner in which the accident had taken place and injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute and therefore there is no need to consider the said contention. 5. It is the case of the claimant that on 10.02.2015 at about 2.30 p.m. he was traveling in TATA ACE vehicle bearing No. KA-29-A-3010 from Yallammanagudda towards his native place. At the spot of accident, the bus bearing No. KA-42-F-1556 was following the said TATA ACE vehicle. The driver of the bus was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result of which the claimant sustained fracture of right tibia. He had taken treatment in the Government Hospital, Savadatti and was admitted as inpatient for 15 days. He further contended that claimant had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, he was aged 23 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing coolie work. Due to injury sustained in the accident he has been suffering from permanent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 disability. With these reasons prayed to award compensation. 6. The respondent Corporation has contended in its written statement that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the TATA ACE vehicle by its driver as well as contribution of the claimant. The claimant was sitting negligently at the backside of the TATA ACE because of which the accident had taken place. In the alternative it has contended that due to contributory negligence of drovers pf both the vehicles, the accident had taken place. Therefore the Corporation alone is not liable to pay compensation. 7. From the rival contention of the parties the Tribunal has framed necessary issues. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.47. The respondent examined one witness as RW1. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating pleadings and evidence held that the accident had taken place due to exclusive negligence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal also assessed age of the claimant as 23 years, income as Rs.7,000/- per month, permanent disability affecting earning capacity of the claimant at 13%, applied multiplier ‘18’ and assessed compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. The Tribunal has awarded compensation on the following amount under differ heads. 1. Loss of earning and future income 1,96,560.00 2. Medical expenses and future medical expenses 32,000.00 3. Special diet, conveyance expenses, attendant charges and other incidental expenses 25,000.00 4. Pain, suffering and mental agony 50,000.00 5. Loss of enjoyment of life, expectation of life, marriage prospects 50,000.00 Total 3,53,560.00 8. I have heard arguments. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submits that the manner in which the accident had taken place itself indicates that claimant had also contributed for the accident in question, he was not sitting properly inside the TATA ACE vehicle, he was sitting in negligent manner - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 because of which he sustained injuries. However, the Tribunal has not considered the said fact. He further contended that claimant has not examined the treated Doctor to prove the disability. After three years from the date of accident PW2 has already examined petitioner and given disability certificate that claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 40% to the particular limb. The Tribunal assessed disability as 13% to the whole body. The said calculation is incorrect and Tribunal ought not to have accepted the evidence of PW2. Therefore claimant is not entitled for compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. He further submitted that amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on the higher sides, rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is also on the higher side. Considering the said contention he prays to modify the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that driver of the bus was chargesheeted for the accident in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 question. From the chrgesheet and its enclosures reveal that accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. The claimant was traveling in the said vehicle. Therefore he was not at all responsible for causing the accident in question. The contention of the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the Tribunal has taken income of the claimant as Rs.7,000/- per month which is on the lower side. Even if the Tribunal has considered the schedule prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for assessing the income, it could have taken the income as Rs.8,000/- per month. The Tribunal has also not awarded the compensation under the head future medical expenses. With these reasons prayed to enhance the amount of compensation. 12. The following questions arise for determination. [1] Whether the findings of the Tribunal that entire negligence was of the driver of the bus is proper? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 [2] Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? [3] What order? 13. Point No.1: It is the case of the claimant that he was sitting at the backside of the TATA ACE vehicle and the bus came from the back side of the said vehicle and dashed against the TATA ACE vehicle as a result of which claimant sustained injuries. Ex.P.2 reveals that driver of the bus did not maintain proper distance between the two vehicles. It indicates that due to his negligence the accident had taken place. In Ex.P.2 it is stated that the claimant herself as well as the other passengers were repeatedly shouting to the driver of the bus, not to drive the vehicle negligently, however he did not care for the same. On the basis of Ex.P.2 the Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and submitted the chargesheet. Ex.P.7 reveals that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal considering the materials available rightly held that accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 the bus. There are no materials to take a different view from the view expressed by the trial court. Therefore the contention of the Corporation that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the TATA ACE vehicle as well as the driver of the Corporation bus is not acceptable. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. 14. Point No. 2:The claimant had sustained fracture of both the bones of right leg. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate which indicates that he had sustained 1/3rd fracture of right tibia along with other punctured wounds. In the disability certificate given by PW2 as per Ex.P.44, in the first page it is mentioned that fracture of 1/3rd of the right tibia along with punctured wound, but in the back sheet of the said sheet it is mentioned that fracture of both right tibia and fibula. Even the X-ray produced by the claimant does not support fracture of fibula. It appears on the basis of fracture of both bones of right leg, he assessed permanent disability at 40% to the right lower limb. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 Considering Ex.P.6 fracture is only in respect of right tibia. Therefore the assessment of disability by the Tribunal that for the whole body is ‘13’ is incorrect. Considering the age and occupation of the claimant and fracture of right tibia the permanent disability of the claimant affecting his earning capacity is determined as 10% to the whole body. 15. It is true that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation towards loss of income during laid up period and even the Tribunal has considered awarding compensation towards future medical expenses. The claimant underwent surgery and implants are not removed so far. Therefore for removal of the same he has to spend some amount. Under these circumstances the claimant is entitled for compensation under the said two heads. The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads are just and proper and does not call for any interference. 16. For the aforesaid discussion, the following amount of compensation is recalculated and awarded as under: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 1. Loss of earning and future income Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 18 x 10% 1,72,800.00 2. Medical expenses and future medical expenses 32,000.00 3. Special diet, conveyance expenses, attendant charges and other incidental expenses 25,000.00 4. Pain, suffering and mental agony 50,000.00 5. Loss of enjoyment of life, expectation of life, marriage prospects 50,000.00 6. Loss of amenities 25,000.00 7. Loss of income during laid up period 24,000.00 Total 3,78,800.00 Award of Tribunal 3,53,560.00 Enhancement 25,240.00 17. Another main grievance of the Corporation is that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Awarding of interest is discretion of the Tribunal. It appears, considering the rate of interest given by the bank on fixed deposits for a period of one year and other particulars it must have awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. There are no reasons to hold that it is arbitrary and hence no need to interfere with the said finding. However, for the enhanced amount of compensation the claimant will be awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, question No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 18. Point No. 3: For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER M.F.A. No. 104377/2019 and M.F.A. No. 103467/2019 are partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned Prl. Sr. Civil Judge & AMACT, Savadatti in M.V.C. No. 964/2017 is modified. The claimant is entitled for enhancement of Rs.25,240/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realization. The respondent shall deposit the balance amount payable to the claimant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the award. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4916 MFA No. 104377 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 103467 of 2019 Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant/ Corporation before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Send back the trial court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9