- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7046 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI DAYANAND, S/O RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MADABA VILLAGE, BAGAR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HASSAN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI D VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27/02/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.501/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN DISTRICT (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC.No.501/2017 passed by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sit at Channarayapatna) dated 27.02.2019, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.10.2015 at 05.00 p.m., while the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA-13-Q-2036, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-13-F-2142 came and dashed to the two wheeler of the petitioner, resulting in he falling down and sustaining injuries. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Channarayapatna and had to spend huge amount for the treatment. It was contended that the petitioner had sustained fracture of right Zygomatic arch and such other - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 injuries to the face. As such, he sought adequate compensation from the respondent-KSRTC. 4. On issuance of notice, the respondent-KSRTC appeared and resisted the petition contending that the petitioner was not having a valid driving licence to ride a motorcycle and that he was under the intoxication of the liquor and as such, there is contributory negligence. Inter alia, it also denied its liability to pay the compensation and termed compensation claimed by the petitioner as highly exorbitant and imaginary. 5. After framing appropriate issues, the Tribunal recorded the evidence of the petitioner and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked in evidence. No evidence was lead on behalf of the respondent. 6. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that there is 25% contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and assessed the compensation at Rs.1,06,000/- under different heads as below: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of amenities' is on the lower side and no compensation is awarded towards 'loss of income during laid up period' and there shall be a re-assessment of the compensation. He also contends that non-possession of the Driving Licence cannot be a ground to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Pain and Suffering 20,000/- 2. Medical Expenses 56,000/- 3. Food, diet, attendant charges, conveyance, transportation expenses and loss of income during laid off period 20,000/- 4. Loss of amenities 10,000/- TOTAL 1,06,000/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-KSRTC contends that there is no need for any indulgence by this Court and the compensation awarded is adequate. 10. A careful perusal of the evidence would show that the petitioner in his testimony has denied that there was any negligence on his part. However, he admits that he does not possess any Driving Licence to ride the motorcycle and also admit that there was no insurance for his motorcycle. It is worth to note that the perusal of the Police papers produced at Exs.P1 to P6 clearly show that the negligence was on the part of the bus driver. The accident had taken place on the extreme left side of Hassan-Channarayapatna Road. Despite there being sufficient width of the road on the left side of the bus, it is not known why the bus has dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. Therefore, the investigating authority has filed chargesheet against the bus driver. No palpable negligence was found on the part of the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, fastening the contributory - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 negligence on the petitioner solely on the ground that he was no possessing valid driving licence and he had not insured his vehicle, cannot be sustained. The actionable negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident needs to be established. From the investigation papers and the cross-examination of PW.1, no such contributory negligence could be deciphered. Therefore, conclusion of the Tribunal in paragraph No.7 of the impugned judgment, insofar as it relates to fastening 25% of the negligence on the petitioner deserves to be set aside. 11. The petitioner had sustained the fracture of the right Zygomatic, circum orbit and such related injuries. He contended that he was inpatient at Mangala Hospital from 15.10.2015 to 21.10.2015. Anyhow, there is no evidence of the Medical Officer and therefore, there cannot be any functional disability. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 12. In that view of the matter, on a careful assessment of the nature of injuries sustained by him and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that there is a need for enhancement of the compensation under the head of 'pain and suffering' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner has not been awarded any compensation under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period' and the same needs to be awarded at Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities in life' and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.55,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The compensation awarded under the other heads do not require any enhancement. 13. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 14. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.55,000/- with interest and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.55,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) Pain and suffering 40,000/- Medical Expenses 56,000/- Food, diet, attendant charges and conveyance 20,000/- Loss of income during laid up period 10,000/- Loss of amenities in life 35,000/- 1,61,000/- 1,06,000/- TOTAL Less awarded by Tribunal Enhancement 55,000/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30033 MFA No. 7046 of 2019 (iii) The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19