- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103998 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SUNKAPPA S/O. PENNAPPA AGE : 41 YEARS, EX-SECURITY GUARD, R/O. WARD NO.17, B.GONAHAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. UMESH AGASAR S/O.THIPPESWAMY AGE: 29 YEARS, DRIVER THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REG.NO. KA-02/B-7650, R/O. JANATHA NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI-583101. 2. RAJU @ REDDAPPA S/O. SUNKANNA AGE: 41 YEARS, OWNER THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REG.NO. KA-02/B-7650, R/O. WARD NO.20, SIDDARATHA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 3. MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN AGE : 57 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE APSRTC BUS BEARING REGN.NO.AP-02/Z-0063, R/O : DOOR NO.26/204, MONAN STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTHAPUR OF ANDHRA PRADESH-420001. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC BUS STATION COMPLEX, ANATHAPUR, A.P-420001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S.R. NAMAZI, ADV FOR R2 & R4, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.01 11:21:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1149/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded on 27.03.2019 by the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-XII, Ballari (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.1149/2016. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner met with an accident on 17.05.2016 wherein the driver of the auto-rickshaw - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 bearing Reg.No.KA-02/B-765,0 driven the said vehicle in a rash negligent manner and collided with the petitioner’s bicycle, as a result, he fell down on the road and got hit by an APSRTC1 bus bearing Reg.No.AP-02/Z-0063 and sustained grievous injuries. He has spent huge amount towards medical and other expenses and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation of Rs.28,00,000/-. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the driver of the auto rickshaw. Despite service of notice, they remained unrepresented and placed ex-parte. 4. Respondent No.3-the driver of the APSRTC bus filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the accident had occurred between the petitioner and the auto-rickshaw. He contended that, the petitioner due to his own negligence, met with an accident, hence, prays to 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 dismiss the claim petition against the driver of the auto- rickshaw. 5. Respondent No.4-APSRTC, filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and prays to dismiss the claim petition against APSRTC. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, had framed the relevant issues for its consideration. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 to P26. The driver of the bus (respondent No.3) was examined as RW-1 and no documents were marked. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- with an interest at the rate of 7% per annum. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 9. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for APSRTC. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, wherein the petitioner examined the Doctor as PW-2, who opined that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body, wherein the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10%, which is on the lower side and he also submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the APSRTC submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is about the quantum of compensation. Reg. quantum of compensation: 14. There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained injuries and the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and also the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of the auto-rickshaw and the bus. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability in the ratio of 30:70. 15. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioner, to substantiate his case, has not produced any income proof. The accident is of the year - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 2016. Therefore, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,750/-. The petitioner was aged about 31 years as on the date of the accident. 40% of the future prospects to be added as per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others2 i.e., Rs.8,750/- + 40% = Rs.12,250/-. Thus, the income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.12,250/-. 16. The petitioner, to prove the disability, has examined the Doctor as PW-2. PW-2 examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically. He opined that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body. The petitioner has produced disability certificate marked as Ex.P8. Though the Doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered 25% disability, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10%, which is on the lower side. This Court re-assesses the disability at 12% to the whole body. Considering the evidence of the 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 Doctor as well as the medical reports, this Court re-assesses the compensation under the following heads: Compensation awarded in Rs. Particulars By the Tribunal By this Court Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 50,000/- Medical expenses, surgery and treatment 22,000/- 22,000/- Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 10,000/- 20,000/- Loss of income during the period of hospitalization and treatment 15,000/- 36,750/- (12,280x3) Loss of amenities 10,000/- 25,000/- Loss of future income 1,53,000/- 2,82,240/- (12,250 x 12 x 16 x 12%) Total 2,40,000/- 4,35,990/- Enhanced by this Court 1,95,990/- Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,990/- with an interest at the rate - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10563 MFA No. 103998 of 2019 of 6% per annum. 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 award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1149/2016 is modified; iii. The petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,990/- with the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation; iv. Respondents No.2 and 4 are liable to pay the enhanced compensation to the petitioner in the ratio of 30:70 respectively; v. Respondents No.2 and 4 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28