- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15796 MFA No. 101555 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101552 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101555 OF 2015 (MV-) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101552 OF 2015 IN MFA NO.101555/2015: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, RAICHUR DEPOT, RAICHUR, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAN, KALABURGI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. VAISHALI K. KALADAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N. SRINIVAS S/O DURUGAPPA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN IN MSPL, R/O: NEAR ESHWAR TEMPLE, DANAPUR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT BELAGAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. NARASAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC, BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-36/F-887, R/O: MARCHEDU VILLAGE, RAICHUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2- SERVED UNREPRESENTED) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15796 MFA No. 101555 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101552 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2015 BEFORE THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BALLARI IN MVC NO.1239/2013, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN MFA NO. 101552/2015: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, RAICHUR DEPOT, RAICHUR, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAN, KALABURGI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. VAISHALI K. KALADAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PAKKIRA SWAMY S/O NAYAKAR DASAPPA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: OPERATOR IN HKT, R/O: DANAPUR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT BELAGAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. NARASAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC BUS BEARING REG: NO.KA-36/F-887, R/O: MARCHEDU VILLAGE, RAICHUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2- SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, IS PRAYING TO SETASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2015 BEFORE THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BELLARY MVC NO. 1238/2013, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15796 MFA No. 101555 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101552 of 2015 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Ms. Vaishali K. Kaladagi, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals as well as Sri Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel who represents respondent No.1 in both the appeals. 2. While MFA 101552 of 2015 is filed challenging the award that is passed in MVC 1238 of 2013, MFA 101555 of 2015 is filed challenging the award that is passed in MVC 1239 of 2013. Both the awards were passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Ballari on 30.01.2015. 3. It is not in dispute that the claimant in MVC 1238 of 2013 sustained one simple injury and the claimant in MVC 1239 of 2013 sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury i.e., fracture of mandibular bone. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15796 MFA No. 101555 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101552 of 2015 4. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the claimant in MVC 1238 of 2013 and Rs.2,19,000/- as compensation to the claimant in MVC 1239 of 2013. 5. Award of compensation of Rs.20,000/- globally to the claimant in MVC 1238 of 2013 is justifiable. No grounds are made out to interfere with the amount thus awarded. Though it is contented by learned counsel for appellant that the said amount is high and excessive, the said sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards the amount incurred which includes treatment, transportation and attendant charges. Therefore this Court is of the view that the appeal filed in that regard is liable to be dismissed. 6. So far as award of compensation to the claimant in MVC 1239 of 2013 is concerned, as already indicated, the claimant therein established that he sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury. Also the claimant established that he took treatment as inpatient for 5 days - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15796 MFA No. 101555 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101552 of 2015 and he underwent bone plating as well. Though the evidence of PW3 is that the disability is 20% in respect of whole body, the tribunal took the disability as 15%. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the claimant, though the notional income that is being taken for the relevant period is Rs.5,500/-, the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.5,000/- per month only. This Court therefore does not find any grounds whatsoever to interfere with the finding given that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- as compensation covering all heads. Therefore the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that the appeal in that regard cannot be considered. 7. The submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals is that the quantum granted is high end excessive and therefore these appeals are filed. However the aforementioned discussion goes to show that the compensation granted cannot be termed to be excessive. Hence the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15796 MFA No. 101555 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 101552 of 2015 ORDER (i) Both the appeals stand dismissed. (ii) Amount if any in deposit in both the appeals be transmitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM Ct-gtb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36