- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35178 MFA No. 3519 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3519 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. KISHOR KUMAR M.K., S/O KRISHNA REDDY M.N., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT VINAYAKA NAGAR PAVAGADA, TUMKUR KARNATAKA - 561 202 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC MANGALURU DIVISION BEJAI MANGALURU …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.12.2020 IN MVC NO.966/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-I, D.K, MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35178 MFA No. 3519 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.966/2018 dated 31.12.2020 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Member MACT-I, D.K. Mangaluru, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.9,18,686/-, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. The facts of the case are that on 22.04.2018, when the claimant was traveling from Moodabidre to Ujire in KSRTC Bus near Badyaru in Kuvettu Village, Belthangady Taluk at about 12:15 p.m., the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brake on account of which the claimant was thrown from the seat and fell in the bus as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal had not considered the disability as assessed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35178 MFA No. 3519 of 2022 by the doctor only on the ground that he is not a treated doctor. It is submitted that when a disability certificate was produced and the doctor was examined, the Tribunal ought to have considered the same. Learned counsel submits that when the claimant had sustained 50% permanent physical disability, the Tribunal ought to have considered it. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence and granted the compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The Tribunal had observed that admittedly, PW.3 has not treated the claimant at any point of time. PW.3 has claimed that he along with Dr.Deeraj assessed the disability of the claimant and gave the disability certificate marked at Ex.P14 and PW.3 is a medico- legal consultant in A.J. Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangaluru. Further, PW.3 has not produced any document before the Tribunal to show that he has examined the claimant for the purpose of assessing his disability except signature of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35178 MFA No. 3519 of 2022 PW.3 found in Ex.P14. On the other hand, the medical record available before the Tribunal goes to show that the claimant was treated by Dr. Deeraj, who is a Consultant Orthopedic Spine Surgeon. It is not the case of the claimant that the doctor is not available for his examination before the Tribunal. Thereby it becomes clear that the claimant had failed to place best evidence before the Tribunal to prove his alleged physical disability. On this ground, the court did not consider the disability. This Court has perused the finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had not considered the evidence of the doctor only on the ground that the treated doctor was not examined and the doctor who has given the disability certificate has not given proper evidence that the claimant had sustained disability. This Court is of the view that balancing the interest of the parties, it would be appropriate to remand the matter facilitating the claimant to adduce evidence in support of his disability. 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed and the award passed in MVC.No.966/2018 dated 31.12.2020 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Member MACT-I, D.K. Mangaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35178 MFA No. 3519 of 2022 i. As far as the disability of the claimant and the compensation as per that are concerned, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. ii. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence as far as the disability of the claimant is concerned. iii. Without further reference, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 25.09.2025. iv. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within six months from 25.09.2025. v. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi. No Costs. vii. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15