- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12334 MFA No. 101752 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101752 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HAMPAMMA W/O AMARESHAPPA @ AMBARISH, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. EX-COOLIE, R/O. WARD NO.1, VENKATAPURA VILLAGE TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR PRESENTLY R/AT NEAR CANAL KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI-583101. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMAREGOUDA M, ADV) AND: 1. BHEEMAPPA SOMA S/O SOMASEKHARAPPA AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF KSRTC CITY BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/F-229 HOSAPETE DEPOT, R/O.NO.2-4, WEAVERS COLONY, HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKSTC OWNER OF THE KSRTC CITY BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/F-229 HOSAPERE DEPOT, HOSAPETE DIVISION, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583201 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1245/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CUM MACT-VII, HOSAPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12334 MFA No. 101752 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-cum-MACT- VIII, Hosapete (hereinafter referred to as 8the Tribunal9, for short) vide judgment and award dated 12.10.2021 in MVC No.1245/2018. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 12.11.2018, the petitioner along with her son were travelling in KSRTC bus bearing registration number KA- 35/F- 229 as a paid passengers from Hampi towards Hosapete. The driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed. As a result, the petitioner fell down from the bus and sustained the injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12334 MFA No. 101752 of 2024 3. The NEKRTC Corporation filed statement of objections, which was adopted by the driver of the bus, denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the petitioner herself, but not on account of the negligent act of the driver of the bus. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the driver and the Corporation. 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 5. The petitioner, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW2, and marked 42 documents as Exhibits P1 to P42. In rebuttal, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1, and no documents were marked. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 12.10.2021 and held that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of ¹1,03,418/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12334 MFA No. 101752 of 2024 petition till its realization and directed the NEKRTC Corporation to deposit the compensation amount. 7. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the corporation. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the tribunal, in the absence of the proof of income, the tribunal could have assessed the income of the petitioner based on the schedule notified by the KSLSA. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12334 MFA No. 101752 of 2024 12. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The petitioner, to prove the disability, examined the doctor as PW2, who opined that the petitioner had suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 22% whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 5% ,which is on the lower side. PW2 is not a treated doctor, the tribunal could have considered 1/3rd of the disability assessed by PW2. This Court assess the permanent disability at 8%. Although, the petitioner contended that her monthly income was ¹12,000/-per month as a coolie. To prove the income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, notional income has to be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka state Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2018. The notional income is taken at Rs.11,750/- per month. The petitioner was aged 48 years old as of the date of the accident, and the multiplier - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12334 MFA No. 101752 of 2024 applicable to her age group is 13. Thus, considering the evidence of PW2, and medical records, this Court re-assesses the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs. Compensation re-assessed by this Court Rs. 1 Pain and suffering - 25,000/- 2 Medical expenses 16,018/- 16,018/- 3 Loss of income during treatment period - 23,500/- 4 Loss of future earnings (11,750/-x12x13x8%) 62,400/- 1,46,640/- 5 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 25,000/- 6 Diet, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance 10,000/- 18,000/- 7 Future medical expenses 5,000/- 10,000/- TOTAL 1,03,418/- 2,64,158/- 14. Thus the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,64,158/- as against ¹1,03,418/-. Thus the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of ¹1,60,740/-. In view of the above discussion the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly. 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12334 MFA No. 101752 of 2024 ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 12.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-cum-MACT-VII, Hosapete, in MVC No.1245/2018, is hereby modified. iii. The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,64,158/- i.e., to the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,60,740/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation of the amount. iv. The TCR be transmitted to the tribunal concerned forthwith. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB