- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102921 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHIVAKUMAR B.V. @ SHIVU @ UMESHAPPA @ UMESH, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORK, R/O: BILGUNI, POST: THAMMADIHALLI, TQ: & DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, NOW AT MARUTINAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADV) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN [OWNER AND SELF INSURER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KA-13/F-1825]. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.142/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, RANEBENNUR, 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: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 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 appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 05.02.2016 passed in MVC No.142/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 26.10.2013, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-15/S-3733 from Meghan Hospital to Bilguin village. When he came near Sagar Road, near Alkol Circle, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-13/F- 1825, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, and colluded with the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner spent a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 huge amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. 4. The respondent-KSRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 35 documents as Exs.P1 to P35. On the other hand, the driver of the respondent-KSRTC was examined as R.W.1, and marked 1 document as Ex.R1, with the consent. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs and awarded compensation of Rs.2,66,035/- with interest at the rate of 7%, and directed the respondent-KSRTC to deposit the compensation amount. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 6. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.142/2014, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent-KSRTC. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sustained the grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.2, and he opined that the petitioner has sustained a permanent disability to an extent of 50%. However, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 8%, which is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He submits that the compensation awarded under the other heads is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-KSRTC supports the impugned judgment, and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. I have perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The point, that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 12. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has produced the charge sheet, marked as Ex.P6. From the perusal of Ex.P6, it discloses that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended that the petitioner was working as a Mason, and used to earn Rs.15,000/- p.m. To prove his income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. However, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2013, and the notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m. The petitioner was aged 35 years old as of the date of the accident and hence, the 40% of the future prospects to be added. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the doctor as P.W.2. He opined that the petitioner has sustained disability to the extent of 50%, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 8%. Considering the evidence of the doctor, and the medical records, this court is of the opinion that the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. This - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 court re-asses the permanent disability to the whole body at 15%. 14. Thus, this court on re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation: Compensation awarded in Rs. Sl. No. Heads of compensation By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Towards pain and suffering 35,000/- 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses 1,18,875/- 1,18,875/- 3 Towards conveyance, food nourishment and attendant charges 6,000/- 8,000/- 4 Loss of income during the laid up period 8,000/- 19,600/- (Rs.9,800 x 2) 5 Loss of future earning due to permanent disability 92,160/- 2,82,240/- (Rs. 9,800 x 12 x 16 x 15%) 6 Loss of amenities 6,000 25,000/- Total: 2,66,035/- 5,03,715/- Compensation enhanced by: 2,37,680/- 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award dated 05.02.2016 passed in MVC No.142/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11794 MFA No. 102921 of 2016 Judge & MACT, Ranebennur, is hereby modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,03,715/- as against Rs. 2,66,035 /- awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,37,680/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. (v) The respondent-KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (vi) 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.: 10