- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6532 MFA No. 24391 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 24391 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST, KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, N.W.K.R.T.C, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM-590001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NEHAL B. PATIL, ADV. FOR SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. ANAND VITHAL LIMBOJI, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FIELD UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2012 IN MVC NO.2658/2007 PASSED BY THE MACT KHANAPUR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A & B AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6532 MFA No. 24391 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 06.02.2007 at about 14:45 hours, he was traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-22/F-1272, which was proceeding from Savantwadi towards Khanapur. The bus met with an accident near Danoli-Devasu, as a result of which the claimant, who was a passenger in the bus, sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The respondent – owner of the KSRTC bus (for short “the Corporation”) filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of a car involved in the accident and not due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Hence, it was submitted that the claimant ought to have claimed compensation from the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6532 MFA No. 24391 of 2012 driver of the said car. The Corporation also denied the nature of injuries and other contentions of the claimant, and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of both parties. 5. The Tribunal on appreciating the entire materials available on record held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,86,800/-. The present appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the award on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the Tribunal fastened the entire liability on the Corporation, though the car was also involved in the accident. Secondly, it is contended that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The insurer and the owner of the car are not parties in this proceeding. As held in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.1 in the absence of the owner and the insurer 1 2015 (9) SCC 273 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6532 MFA No. 24391 of 2012 of the car the Tribunal could not have considered the question of composite negligence of the driver of the car. 6. Moreover, from the materials available on record, it is evident that looking to the car, driver of the bus suddenly took the bus to the left side, which led to the accident. The concerned Police charge sheeted the driver of the bus for causing the accident in question. Mere acquittal of the accused in a criminal case registered against him, is not the conclusive proof of his innocence. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is different from stand of proof in motor vehicle claim proceedings. In criminal trial a fact has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; whereas in motor accident claims cases a fact has to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and he was acquitted in criminal case do not affect liability of the owners of the bus in paying compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6532 MFA No. 24391 of 2012 7. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and this finding does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. The second grievance of the appellant pertains to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. It is undisputed that the claimant was a passenger and suffered fracture to the 3rd and 4th metacarpal bones of his right hand. PW2 assessed the disability to an extent of 22% to the right hand, which appears to be on the higher side. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly contended that even in cases involving amputation of a finger, the permanent disability to the whole body may not exceed 4% to 5%. Hence, for a fracture of the metacarpal bones, the disability assessed at 10% by the Tribunal is excessive. 9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the litigation has been pending for the last 18 years, it is just and proper to reduce the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6532 MFA No. 24391 of 2012 whole body disability assessment from 10% to 5% of as an exceptional case. Accordingly, the compensation under the head “loss of future earning capacity due to the permanent disability” is recalculated at Rs.38,400/- instead of Rs.76,800/-. The remaining amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. In total, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,48,400/- instead of Rs.1,86,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the its realization. 11. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 5th June 2012, passed in MVC No.2658/2007, by the MACT, Khanapur is modified to the extent indicated above. 12. The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6532 MFA No. 24391 of 2012 13. The Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with a copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9