- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24270 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISION MANAGER NORTH-WEST KSRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, R/BY KSRTC DEPOT MANAGER, MAGOD ROAD, RANEBENNUR, R/BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. LOKESH S/O MALLIKARJUN @ MALLIKAPPA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND GLASS CUTTING WORKS, R/O: BEDARHALLI, TQ & DIST: SHIMOGA, NOW AT RANEBENNUR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADV) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:10.05.2013, PASSED IN MVC. NO.479/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,84,160/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the NWKRTC, challenging the judgment and award dated 10.05.2013 passed in MVC No.479/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 12.02.2011, at about 10.30 a.m. the petitioner was going on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 14/EA-4758 along with a pillion rider from Bedarahosahalli to Shimoga. When he came near Tevarachatanahalli, a dog came in front of the motorcycle. On seeing the same, the petitioner took the motorcycle on the right side. At that time, the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-22/F-1514 came from Shimoga, driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 negligent manner, dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. The NWKRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the petitioner himself has contributed to the cause of the accident. There is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Conversely, the NWKRTC has not led any oral or documentary evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 10.05.2013, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,84,160/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, and NWKRTC was directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. 8. The NWKRTC, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.479/2011, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the NWKRTC and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the NWKRTC submits that the petitioner himself is responsible for the cause of the accident, and there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, the Tribunal has not fastened liability on the petitioner. He submits that the compensation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus, and no charge sheet is filed against the petitioner. The Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the NWKRTC. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation. Regarding Liability: 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 the driver of the bus. The NWKRTC contended that the petitioner had also contributed to the cause of the accident. The NWKRTC has not examined the driver of the bus and also eyewitness, to establish that the petitioner has contributed to the cause of the accident. Admittedly, a charge sheet at EX.P-7, is filed against the driver of the bus. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1. In view of the same, the point regarding liability is answered accordingly. Regarding the quantum of compensation: 15. The NWKRTC contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. The Tribunal took the income of the petitioner at Rs 4,500/- p.m. The accident occurred in 2011. As per the schedule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 specified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income has to be assessed at Rs.6,000/-, wherein the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.4,500/- p.m. Admittedly, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner is satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in awarding a compensation of Rs.1,84,160/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 10.05.2013 passed in MVC No.479/2011 by the learned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12176 MFA No. 24270 of 2013 Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur, is hereby confirmed. iii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8