- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 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. 100012 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, BALLARI DIVISION, BALLARI. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI-585102. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AMBANNA S/O. HONNAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1A. HULIGEMMA W/O. AMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 1B. SUNKAMMA W/O. PAMPAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 1C. YALLAMMA W/O. MAILARY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. 11TH WARD, VARAKERI, CHITTAGADAGI, VTC HOSAPETE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARI-583201. 2. V. RENUKAPPA S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER, HOSAPETE DEPOT, R/O. HAMPI ROAD, BATTARAHALLI CROSS, HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT-583222. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR LRS OF R1(A) TO R1(C); NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C HOSAPETE IN M.V.C. NO.920/2007 DATED 09.08.2016 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This is an appeal by the owner of the bus- Corporation challenging the judgment and award dated 09.08.2016 passed in M.V.C. No. 920/2007 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-Cum-Member, MACT- IV, Hospet. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The respondent-claimant filed a claim petition for awarding compensation due to injuries sustained in the vehicular accident caused by the bus belonging to respondent No.2. The claim petition was partly allowed directing the respondent No.2 to pay compensation of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 Rs.3,49,300/-. The same is challenged in the present appeal on the ground that amount of compensation awarded is excessive. 4. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.12.2006 around 5.30 p.m. when claimant was going on his bicycle on the T.B. Dam Road near Venkateshwar Temple, Hosapete he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. KA-01-F-693, as a result of which claimant had sustained severe head injury. He had taken treatment as inpatient in VIMS Hospital, Ballari from 23.12.2006 to 28.12.2006. He had also taken treatment with the private Doctors. He had spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses. He was aged about 42 years at the time of accident, working as a Mason and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident he has been suffering from permanent disability which is affecting his earning capacity. With these reasons he prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- with interest. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 5. The appellant-Corporation denied the contention of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of both the claimant as well as the respondent. The claimant examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 18 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18. The respondent No.2 got examined one of its officials as RW1. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned judgment the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition awarding compensation of Rs.3,49,300/-. 7. The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month without any basis. Even if the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taken into consideration, the monthly income cannot be more than Rs.3,750/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed permanent disability at 35% to the whole body on the basis of evidence of PW2. PW2 assessed disability after ten years from the date of accident. Therefore accepting - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 his evidence by the Tribunal is not proper and hence the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is also excessive and exorbitant. He further contends that the Tribunal has awarded compensation towards future medical expenses without such case has been made out by the claimant. In view of these reasons prayed to recalculate the award amount to allow the appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent claimant vehemently contends that the claimant has been suffering from injuries sustained in the accident. The accident had taken place during the year 2008. As per the evidence of PW2 even during 2016 when he examined him, found that claimant has been suffering lot of difficulties, which are noted in the disability certificate. The claimant had sustained fracture to the skull bone and haemorrhage because of which he is frequently suffering from seizures. PW1 in his evidence has stated that he was unable to do any work due to the said injuries, which is probable and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 acceptable. Considering all these facts and circumstances the Tribunal by assigning valid reasons awarded compensation and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. The questions that arise for determination of the Court are: [1] Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and unjust and interference by this Court is required? [2] What order? 10. Point No.1 is answered in the negative for the following reasons: 11. The fact of accident is not in dispute. The Police after investigation filed chargesheet against the driver of the bus for causing the accident in question. The main contention of the appellant is that disability assessed by the Doctor as well as accepted by the Court is incorrect. PW2 is the treated Doctor. In his evidence he has stated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 that he had treated the claimant in VMIS Hospital, Ballari when he was admitted immediately after the accident for treatment. He has further stated that in the month of July, 2016 the claimant again visited VIMS Hospital for further treatment and he was admitted as inpatient in the hospital. After scanning his brain it was found that “H/04 EPISODE OF SEIZURES WITH TONGUE BITE AND COMPLAINT OF HEADACHE, GIDDINESS WITH SLURRED SPEECH”. PW2 has also stated about the difficulties of the claimant. 12. PW1 in his evidence has stated that frequently he suffers from giddiness and seizures. Therefore he was unable to do any work. On the basis of assessment of the disability, PW2 in his evidence has stated that claimant has been suffering from disability to an extent of 35 to 40% to the whole body. The disability stated by PW2 is in respect of whole body. When a victim of an accident sustained head injuries and not disability to lower limbs or upper limbs. It cannot be considered as 1/3 to the whole - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 body. On the contrary the disability to the brain is the disability to the whole body. Considering the said point the Tribunal has taken disability as 35%. The Tribunal has not committed any error in accepting the same. In the cross examination of PW2, he denied the suggestion that inspite of said injury, injured can do his regular work without any difficulty. PW2 is a qualified neurologist and nothing is brought out in the cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore his evidence is accepted. 13. The Tribunal has taken income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Tribunal ought to have taken income at the most Rs.3,750/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The difference between the two amounts are not huge but hardly it is about Rs.250/-. The said chart is a guide to assess the notional income. Merely Tribunal has taken - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 marginally more amount cannot be considered as illegal. Hence there is no need to reconsider the same. 14. Looking to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads it is not much. The claimant has not challenged the amount awarded for enhancement of the compensation and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to reconsider the same in the absence of appeal by the claimant. 15. It is true that PW1 or PW2 have not specifically mentioned about the amount to be spent by the claimant regularly for taking treatment. There is no clear evidence regarding the future medical expenses. However, considering the amount of compensation awarded under other heads and looking to the condition of claimant and evidence of PWs.1 and 2 so also claimant has been suffering from difficulties due to seizures, it is not a fit case to reconsider the same. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4961 MFA No. 100012 of 2017 16. Considering the all contentions of the parties, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, question No.1 is answered in the negative and I pass the following order: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 09.08.2016 in M.V.C. No. 920/2007 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-Cum-Member, MACT-IV, Hospet, is confirmed. The amount in deposit, if any, by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for release in favour of the claimant if it is already not satisfied. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32