- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3116 OF 2021 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1911 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 3116/2021: BETWEEN: RAVI SHANKARACHARI S/O GURUBRAMMACHARI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO.196, MUNINAGAPPA LAYOUT NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, VIDYASAGAR DR. SHIVARAMA KARANTHNAGAR BENGALURU-560 077. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.5306/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 IN MFA NO. 1911/2021: BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: RAVI SHANKARACHARI S/O GURUBRAMMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.196, MUNINAGAPPA LAYOUT NEAR SHIVA TEMPLE, VIDHYA ROAD DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560 077. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.5306/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,75,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU) 1. These are cross appeals, while M.F.A.No.3116/2021 has been filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) and M.F.A.No.1911/2021 has been filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). Both appeals seek to challenge the Judgment and award dated 16.12.2020 in MVC No.5306/2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Impugned Judgment). 2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.17,75,000/- to the Claimant in MVC No.5306/2018 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realisation and has fixed the contributory negligence both on the KSRTC and claimant to the extent of 60% and 40% respectively. 3. The appellant/claimant in MFA No.3116/2021 seeks to set-aside the finding on contributory negligence and also to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 Tribunal. While the respondent/KSRTC in MFA No.1911/2021 seeks to challenge the contributory negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals are, that on 05.11.2017, one Imran.S was riding the motor cycle along with his friend Ravi Shankarachari as the pillion rider. While he was travelling on Old Madras Road, K.R.Puram Flyover Bridge near ITI Colony Gate, Bangalore, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-40-F-0910 stated to being driven in a rash and negligent manner without any indication stopped the bus on the centre of the road which resulted in a loss of control over the motor cycle by Imran and a collision of the motor cycle with the rear end of the bus. As a result of the aforesaid accident, both persons on the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries. Imran S. succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital. 5. The appellant/claimant after the accident was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore where he was admitted as an in- patient from 05.11.2017 to 27.11.2017. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that at the time of accident, he was aged about 26 years and was working as painter and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 took place solely on account of negligence on the part of the KSRTC bus by its driver. The appellant/claimant claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest. It was contended that the respondent/KSRTC as the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle was liable to pay the entire compensation. 6. The respondent/KSRTC, on the other hand contended that the vehicle was driven by its driver slowly and cautiously by the left side of the road by observing traffic rules and regulations and it was while the bus was proceeding at K.R.Puram Flyover, the motor cycle was being driven by the appellant/claimant in a rash and negligent manner and came from behind and caused the accident. It was further contended that the respondent/KSRTC was falsely implicated by the police with the active connivance of the appellant/claimant. Thus, it was contended that respondent/KSRTC is not liable to make payment of compensation. 7. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries due to RTA alleged to have been occurred on 05.11.2017 at about 7.30 p.m., near ITI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 Colony, on Flyover bridge, K.R.Puram. Old Madras road, due to the rash and negligent driver of K.S.R.T.C.Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-40-F-910? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? 3. What order or Award? 8. The learned Tribunal has passed the Impugned Judgment by clubbing both MVC No.5306/2018 and MVC No.1419/2019 together by recording common evidence. 9. The appellant/claimant was examined as P.W.1 and examined two witnesses being P.Ws.2 and 3. The learned Tribunal after examining the evidence including the police complaint and records as well as the sketch and mahazar found that the accident took place on the flyover on the down gradient road and that the bus driver was not diligent and applied the brakes suddenly, leading to the accident. In addition, reliance was also placed on the police record to give a finding that the motor cycle being ridden by the deceased in a rash, negligent and zigzag manner. It was thus held that a major part of negligence is of the driver of the bus while some part of the negligence was also on the rider of the motor cycle. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 learned Tribunal thus affixed the negligence at 60% on the driver of the bus while 40% on the rider of the motor cycle. 9.1. The learned Tribunal after calculating the compensation on various statutory heads awarded the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 01. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 02. Medical expenses 4,20,000/- 03. Loss of income during laid up period 50,000/- 04. Disability 10,80,000/- 05. Towards food, nourishment and attendant charges 25,000/- 06. Loss of future amenities and happiness 1,00,000/- TOTAL 17,75,000/- 10. As stated above, the appellant/claimant has filed MFA No.3116/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation and also challenged the contributory negligence saddled on the rider of the motor cycle, while the respondent/KSRTC has filed MFA No.1911/2021 challenging the contributory negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 11. This Court by its order dated 22.04.2021 had directed stay of the award subject to the respondent/KSRTC depositing 50% of the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the parties contended that the said amount was since deposited in compliance with the order passed by this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the pillion rider cannot contribute to the cause of negligence that would result in the reduction of 40% of the compensation amount. In addition, it is contended that the appellant/claimant was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, however, his monthly income has been wrongly assessed at Rs.10,000/-. It was contended that the wages under the non-pecuniary heads are inadequate. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent/KSRTC, on the other hand has contended that the rough sketch and IMV report does not support the finding of the learned Tribunal and that the driver of the KSRTC who has deposed as R.W.1 did not stop the vehicle and was moving slowly. Thus, it was contended that the finding of contributory negligence is incorrect. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 14. The record reflects that the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant/claimant at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and with the multiplier at ‘18’ calculated 50% functional disability to award Rs.10,80,000/- towards disability as follows: Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.10,80,000/-. 15. Although learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the appellant/claimant was earning a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month, however, he has been unable to show any evidence in support thereof. No salary slip or evidence in support of his contention that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month has been placed on record. The accident is of the year 2017. In the absence of any proof of income, taking note of the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as well as the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru, we deem it appropriate to take the notional income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.11,000/- per month. 15.1. In addition and so far as it relates to the aspect of functional disability, learned Tribunal has taken into account the evidence as produced by the Orthopedic Surgeon as P.W.2 and Neuro Surgeon as P.W.3 and assessed the physical disability of left lower limb at 40%, whole body disability with respect to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 both upper and lower limb at 28%. Neurobehavioral and cognitive disability was assessed at 52% while neurosurgical disability at 35.5% and the permanent physical impairment with respect to whole body was assessed at 66.97%. The learned Tribunal further gave a finding that the appellant/claimant appeared before the Court and withstood the cross- examination. In addition, it was held that P.Ws.2 and 3 are not the doctors who treated him during his hospitalization. Thus, the learned Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability of the appellant/claimant at 50%. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has been unable to make any submission to controvert this assessment. 15.2. So far as the amounts awarded under pecuniary heads, the amounts have been awarded based on the evidence produced and this Court finds no infirmity with the award of the Tribunal in this regard. 16. In view of the aforegoing discussions, the notional income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.11,000/- per month, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 01 Loss of future disability income (Rs.11,000/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.11,88,000/-. 11,88,000/- 02 Pain and sufferings 1,00,000/- 03 Medical Expenses 4,20,000/- 04 Loss of income during laid up period 50,000/- 05 Food and Nourishment charges 25,000/- 06 Loss of amenities 1,00,000/- TOTAL 18,83,000/- 17. On the aspect of liability, the learned Tribunal has assessed the contributory negligence on behalf of the deceased at the rate of 40%. The finding in this behalf has been made by the learned Tribunal based on the fact that motor cycle was not holding a valid insurance at that point of time. 18. Learned Counsel for the respondent/KSRTC has taken us through the spot mahazar of the accident as well as the police report, which sets out that the motor cycle was being driven by the deceased in a zigzag manner. In addition, it is set out that although there was a 30x40 ft. distance between the vehicles and 8 ft. on the left side which gave enough room for moving, the deceased had still managed to collide with the bus. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 However, the appellant was not one riding the vehicle but was the pillion rider. In these circumstances, to attribute contributory negligence on the appellant would not be in order. 19. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions: ORDER (i) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 16.12.2020 in MVC No.5306/2018 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, SCCH-4, is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.18,83,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (ii) The respondent/KSRTC is held liable for payment of the entire compensation amount with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44067-DB MFA No.3116 of 2021 c/w MFA No.1911/2021 (iv) The amount which has been deposited by the respondent/KSRTC before the learned Tribunal shall be deducted prior to making payment to the appellant/claimant. (v) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vi) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. (vii) The appeals are disposed off in the aforegoing terms. (viii) No order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE Yn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA