- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14782 MFA No. 102595 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102595 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.W.K.R.T.C, NOW REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.R. MENSINKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: RAMAKRISHNA RAGHU NAIK , AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & COOLIE, R/O: MUNDAGANAMANE, DEVANALLI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: U.K. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27/10/2014 IN M.V.C.NO.59/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT SIRSI, AT: SIRSI AND THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14782 MFA No. 102595 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri P.G.Chikkanargund who represents Sri C.R.Mensinkai, learned counsel on record for the appellant. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’ for brevity) in MVC 59 of 2014 dated 27.10.2014. 3. Though notice was served upon the respondent, respondent did not choose to contest the matter. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the accident occurred due to negligence on part of the respondent/claimant. Though such a plea was taken and was established before the tribunal, yet the tribunal fastened entire liability against the appellant holding that the driver of the appellant was at fault. 5. Learned counsel also states that the tribunal granted a sum of Rs.73,000/- towards medical expenditure - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14782 MFA No. 102595 of 2015 and again granted a sum of Rs.60,245/- towards Hospital bill which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also states that the compensation that is granted under all other heads is also on higher side. 6. The matrix of the case as projected by the respondent/claimant before the tribunal is that on 05.12.2013 at about 08.30 a.m. while he was riding the motorcycle, the appellant's bus came from opposite direction at a high speed driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. The version of the appellant is that the respondent/claimant is at fault. To substantiate his version, the respondent/claimant apart from examining himself as PW.1 produced copy of FIR which is marked as Ex.P.1, copy of complaint which is marked as Ex.P.2, copy of panchanama which is marked as Ex.P.3 and copy of charge sheet which is marked as Ex.P.6. 7. It is not in dispute that basing on the complaint given, a case was registered by police against the driver of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14782 MFA No. 102595 of 2015 appellant and after due investigation, filed charge sheet against said driver only. The appellant examined RW1 on his side and produced the copy of private complaint which is marked as Ex.R.1 and the complaint of RW.1, which is marked as Ex.R.2. The appellant failed to state anything about the decision that was taken by the concerned Court in respect of the private complaint filed. 8. On the other hand, the respondent/claimant has clearly established that basing on the complaint given on his side, the concerned police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the appellant's driver. Thus, the evidence produced by the respondent/claimant is convincing and it establishes that due to the negligence of the appellant's driver, the accident occurred. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings given by the Tribunal regarding the liability on part of the appellant to pay compensation. 9. Now coming to the quantum, by all the evidence produced, the respondent/claimant established that he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14782 MFA No. 102595 of 2015 sustained fracture of right femur apart from a head injury. He also established that he underwent a surgery during the course of treatment in respect of the fracture sustained to the right femur and that the head injury was managed constructively by tracheospomy. So far as medical expenditure is concerned, the respondent/claimant produced sufficient proof that he spent Rs.72,626.25/- for purchase of medicines etc., and that he paid Rs.60,245/- at hospital for treatment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the tribunal did not err in awarding a sum of Rs.2,61,245/- in total as compensation. Thus, this Court ultimately holds that there are no merits in the appeal. 10. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM,RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11