- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23017 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. H. MAHESH S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED: 23 YEARS, R/O: YENIGI VILLAGE, H.B. HALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV) AND: 1. S. VIJAYA KUMAR S/O S.P PRASAD RAO, MAJOR, OWNER OF THE NEKRTC BUS BEARING REG NO.KA-34/4233, R/O: GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, HOSPET DIVISION, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSEDWITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.01.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1351/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-X, AT BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.16 12:16:33 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal X, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) in MVC No.1351/2009 dated 05.01.2012. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The appellant met with an accident on 13.02.2006 and sustained a grievous injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the NEKRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA 34/4233, while proceeding to H.B.Halli at 8.45 pm near Lokappa land cross on Mariyammanahalli- H.B.Halli main road, wherein the said bus dashed to the parked lorry from back side and turtled down. The petitioner has spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner has suffered permanent disability - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 and hence, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the tribunal i.e., driver and owner of the bus, were placed exparte. Respondent No.2 herien-insurance company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the bus was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and as of the date of the accident, NEKRTC was the deemed owner of the bys and as such Insurance company cannot be made liable and accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. Respondent No.3 herein also filed a written statement denying the averments, and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. i.e. NEKRTC. 4. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues and additional issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 5. To prove the claim petition, the appellant examined himself as PW-1, and marked 5 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5. In rebuttal, respondent No.3 herein examined one witness as RW-1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R-1. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide Judgment dated 05.01.2012 and held that the Appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.80,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein along with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The claim petition was dismissed against respondent No.4 i.e., respondent No.3 herein holding that respondent No.4 is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking an enhancement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner, and the learned counsel for the insurance company-respondent No.3. i.e, Respondent No.2 herein. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has produced a wound certificate marked as Ex.P-4, which discloses that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries. The appellant has not examined the Doctor to prove the disability. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3- insurance company i.e, Respondent No.2 herein submits that the appellant, to prove the permanent disability, has not examined the Doctor and he has not suffered any permanent disability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 13. The occurrence of the accident and the appellant having sustained grievous injuries is not in dispute. To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., Bus, the appellant produced a certified copy of the charge-sheet marked as Ex.P-2. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e, Bus, and the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 is just and proper. 14. Insofar as quantum is concerned: The appellant, to prove the permanent disability, has not examined the Doctor. The appellant has produced a wound certificate marked as Ex.P-4. From the perusal of Ex.P-4 issued by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 District Hospital, Hospete taluk, Bellary district, it discloses that there is a fracture of both bones of the left leg which is grievous in nature. Looking to the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. To meet the ends of justice, and considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondents. 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 05.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal X, Bellary, in MVC No.1351/2009 is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to a global compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) from respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the tribunal, along with interest at the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9428 MFA No. 23017 of 2012 rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the amount. iii. Respondent No.3 i.e., the Insurance Company, before the Tribunal is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within two months. The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB