- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4139 OF 2014 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4196 OF 2014 (MV) IN MFA No. 4139/2014 BETWEEN: SRI. RAJENDRA, S/O. SRI. HUCCHA VEERAIAH, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER, NO.43, SANJEEVAPPA LANE, 25TH CROSS, CUBBONPET ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. SHARMA TRANSPORT NO.328/1, SANGEETHA BHAVAN TSP ROAD, KALASIPALYAM FORT BANGALORE-560 002. 2. THE MANAGER, ICICI LAMBORD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, P.V.R. COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 068. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2015, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.4.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.7257/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 4196/2014 BETWEEN: MANAGER- LEGAL ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INS. CO. LTD., NO.89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 068. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJENDRA S/O HUCCHA VEERAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 OCC: CLEANER, R/AT NO.43, SANJEEVAPPA LANE 25TH CROSS, CUBBONPET ROAD BANGALORE -560 002. 2. M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT NO.328/1, SANGEETHA BHAVAN TSP ROAD, KALASIPALYAM FORT, BANGALORE -560 002. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE -560 027. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. F.S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.4.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.7257/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,56,400/- WITH INTERST (EXCLUDING ON THE FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.20,000) @ 8% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 2nd April 2014, passed by the VIII Addl.Small Causes Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City, (SCCH-5, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.7257/2011. 2. MFA.No.4139/2014 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation and to fasten the liability to an extent of 50% on respondent No.3 and remaining 50% on respondent Nos.1 and 2. MFA.No.4196/2014 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging fastening of liability on the insurer to pay the compensation. Both appeals arise out of common judgment and hence, taken up together for disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.09.2011, at around 7:30 p.m., the claimant, who was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 working as a cleaner, was traveling in the bus bearing registration No.KA-01-AA-0679. A bus bearing registration No.KA-17-F-1302, owned by Respondent No. 3, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, was also going in the same direction. At about 7.30 p.m., both buses collided near Anagoodu village, Davanagere Taluk, on National Highway No. 4. The accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of KSRTC bus. As a result of the impact, claimant, as well as some of the passengers in the KSRTC bus sustained injuries. Claimant took treatment in the Government Hospital, Chigateri, Davanagere and Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. He spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. He has suffered from permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.8 lakhs. 5. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending bus bearing registration No.KA-01-AA-0679. Respondent No.2 - insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 statement, denying the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also contended that accident occured due to the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus. Therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. 6. It further contended that, it was an act policy, therefore, risk of claimant/cleaner of the vehicle was not covered in the policy of insurance. It also contended that due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurances, it is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The respondent No.3-KSRTC in its written statement denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also contended that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-01-AA-0679 and that the driver of the KSRTC bus was driving the vehicle with care and caution. Therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 9. Claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 20 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.2 examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked three documents at Exs.R-1 to R-3. 10. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the bus belonging to respondent No.1. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant between 31 to 35 years; his income as Rs.3,000/- per month, applied the multiplier of `16', assessed the disability to an extent of 15% to the whole body and calculated the compensation and awarded following compensation : - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- Loss of future income due to disability 86,400/- Medical expenses, nourishment, conveyance and incidental expenses 1,00,000/- Future medical expenses 20,000/- Loss of amenities 50,000/- Total 3,56,400/- The Tribunal directed respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and exonerated respondent No.3 from its liability to pay the compensation. Same is challenged in the present appeal by both the claimant and respondent No.2-insurer. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the respondent No.2- insurer. 12. In the appeal filed by the claimant, it is also contended that exonerating respondent No.3 is incorrect as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 of drivers of both the buses, which resulted in injuries caused to the claimant. 13. During pendency of the appeal, on 14.01.2015, the appellant/claimant filed a memo for dispensation of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 3, since the liability is fastened on respondent No.2. In view of the memo, this Court passed an order dated 14.01.2015, dispensing with the notice to respondent Nos.1 and 3. Under these circumstances, one of the grounds of the appeal that the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on respondent No.3 cannot be considered in the absence of contesting parties before the Tribunal. 14. The next question is whether claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? The learned counsel for the claimant contended that, as per the evidence of PW-3 - doctor, claimant has suffered from permanent disability to an extent of 45% to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 the left lower limb and 35% to the right lower limb and 50% to the whole body. 15. He further contended that, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aabid Khan -vs- Dinesh and others,1 whatever disability stated by the doctor has to be accepted by the Tribunal and compensation is to be calculated. But, the Tribunal has taken the disability as 15% to the whole body, which is incorrect. 16. He further contended that claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as wages by working as a cleaner along with batta of Rs.100/- per day. The Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not split up the medical expenses, but has included exact medical bills, as well as attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges and has awarded meagre amount of compensation. 1 2024 ACJ 2142 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 17. The claimant was admitted three times in the hospital and was inpatient for 71 days. He underwent surgery. After discharge from the hospital also, he was advised to take follow up treatment. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal. 18. He further contended that amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on the lower side. The claimant was unable to work for a period of one year while undergoing treatment, but no amount of compensation has been awarded towards loss of income during laid up period. Therefore, prayed to award just and reasonable amount of compensation. 19. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments : (i) Pappu Deo Yadav -vs- Naresh Kumar and others,2 2 2020 ACJ 2695 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 (ii) Muhammed -vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others,3 (iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Durgappa and others,4 (iv) M.S.Lokesh -vs- Achappa and another,5 (v) Syed Sadiq and others -vs- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,6 (vi) Ramachandra -vs- Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,7 (vii) Sri Suresh -vs- Senthil B. and another, SLP (C) No.8074/2025, dated 05.05.2025. 20. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that claimant in his claim petition contended that he was a cleaner in the said bus. Therefore, he was a workman and he had to file claim petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `W.C.Act') 3 2023 ACJ 894 4 2017 ACJ 2600 5 2017 ACJ 1065 6 2014 ACJ 627 7 2013 ACJ2205 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `M.V.Act'). Therefore, claim petition is not maintainable. Even if the claim petition is filed under the M.V.Act, compensation shall be calculated as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and not under the M.V.Act. 21. Learned counsel further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for any interference by this Court. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 22. Learned counsel for the claimant in reply, submitted that under Section 167 of M.V.Act, option is given either to claim under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant has chosen to file the claim petition before the Tribunal under M.V.Act. Therefore, the contention of the insurer is not tenable. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 Suresh Chandra -vs- State of U.P.8 In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this petition is maintainable. 23. In view of the above circumstances, following points arises for consideration: (i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act? (ii) Whether fastening of liability on respondent No.2 to pay compensation by the Tribunal is justified? (iv) What order? Point Nos.1 and 2 : 24. To consider the first question, it is necessary to refer the provision of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under : 8 1996 ACJ 1 (SC) - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 " Section 167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both." (emphasis supplied) 25. An option was given to the claimants, who can claim compensation either under the Motor Vehicles Act, or under Workmen's Compensation Act, and not both. The said Section does not state that, in case, if any workman claims compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act against his employer, then compensation shall be calculated under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. It shall be restricted to the extent of compensation which ought to be awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under these circumstances, the contention of the insurer is not tenable. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 Both are benevolent legislations. Object behind the Act is to provide the benefit of compensation. When an option is given without restriction of the amount of compensation, the insurer cannot add anything more to legislation to deny just compensation. Such interpretation is not permissible. If that was the intention of the legislature, then Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act is redundant. Hence, said submission is not tenable. 26. The claimant had sustained following injuries : (1) Fracture of subtrochanteric of right femur, (2) Type II open fracture of both bones of left leg, (3) crush injury of left foot with 4th metatarsal fracture. Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate given by District Hospital, Davanagere, which shows that claimant sustained subtrochanteric fracture of right femur and fracture of lower 1/3rd of left side tibia. The injury No.2 is grievous in nature. The fracture of both the bones of left - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 leg is not mentioned either in Ex.P-7 or Ex.P-8 - discharge summary. 27. PW-3 in his evidence has stated that claimant had sustained fracture of subtrochanteric of right femur, type II open fracture of both bones of left leg, and crush injury of left foot with fracture of 4th metatarsal bone. The photograph of the patient is placed on record at Ex.P-10, which indicates that he underwent surgery to the left leg and external implants were inserted. The inpatient records of Victoria Hospital are produced at Ex.P-15. 28. The said inpatient records of Victoria Hospital reveals that claimant sustained fracture of lower 1/3rd of tibia and fibula. X-rays in this regard are placed on record. The inpatient record also shows that he sustained degloving injuries. In the examination-in-chief, PW-3 has not stated about union of fractured bones, but in the cross-examination, he has stated that fractured bones were united. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 29. According to his evidence, the claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% to the left lower limb and 30% to the right lower limb and totally, 50% to the whole body. It appears, he has not followed the calculation as per the Notification of the Central Government or ALEMCO Manual. According to his remarks, the claimant is suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 100% since he cannot do the cleaner work or any physical work. 30. The claimant has produced the medical bills. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the total amount of medical bills is Rs.70,328/-. Looking at the materials available on record, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 31. The claimant contended that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as wages and Rs.100/- as batta. The accident occurred during the year 2011. Therefore, following the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 Services Authority, the notional income of the claimant is taken as Rs.6,500/- per month. The claimant has produced the birth extract, which indicates that he was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. The suitable multiplier applicable is `17'. 32. To assess the disability, claimant examined PW- 3. It is true that greater credibility is attached to the evidence of a doctor who treated the injured person. But in this case, firstly he was not a treated doctor. The claimant approached him only for assessing the disability suffered by him. In addition to that, according to his evidence also, claimant cannot do any physical work, that means, he has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 100% to the whole body. For a fracture of femur bone, as well as both the bones of leg, it cannot be considered as fully 100% permanent disability. Hence, the evidence is not fully reliable. Considering the ALEMCO Manual and condition of the claimant and his age, occupation, the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 disability to the whole body is taken as 30%. 33. The Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head `loss of income during laid up period'. The claimant took treatment as an inpatient for about 71 days and he was admitted thrice in the hospital and took follow up treatment. Considering these facts, claimant is entitled for attendance charges, special diet and conveyance charges. 34. For the aforesaid discussions, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- Medical expenses 70,328/- Special diet, attendant charges and conveyance charges 50,000/- Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.6,500/- x 9) 58,500/- - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 17 x 30%) 3,97,800/- Loss of amenities 75,000/- Future medical expenses 30,000/- Total 8,31,628 Amount awarded by the Tribunal - Enhancement - Rounded off - 3,56,400/- 4,75,228/- 4,76,000/- Thus, the claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 35. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the said amount of compensation. 36. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurer referred above are kept in mind while assessing the amount of compensation. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 In view of the above discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 37. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA.No.4139/2014 filed by the claimant is allowed in-part and MFA.No.4196/2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 2nd April 2014, passed in MVC.No.7257/2011, by the VIII Addl.Small Causes Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City (SCCH-5), stands modified; iii) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.4,76,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The Respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29489 MFA No. 4139 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 4196 of 2014 v) The remaining portion of the award is undisturbed. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer in MFA.No.4196/2014, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimant. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7