- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1738 OF 2020 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3200 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 1738/2020 BETWEEN: THE K.S.R.T.C CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE K.H.ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. LOKESH V S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.27, ULLODU GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE [VIDEO CONFERENCE]) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 NO. 1541/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-2) AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,88,310/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 3200/2021 BETWEEN: SRI. LOKESH V S/O VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.27, ULLODU GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE [VIDEO CONFERENCE]) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC DEPOT BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 31.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.1541/2018 by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-2). 2. M.F.A.No. 1738/2020 is filed by the KSRTC through its Chief Law Officer being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award. Whereas M.F.A.No. 3200/2021 is filed by the claimant/petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The brief and relevant facts leading upto these appeals are as under: The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against respondent/Corporation claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, that took place on 30.12.2017 at 07.30 p.m., It is the case of the petitioner that, on that day, after attending his work as a security person at the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 K.E.B Office near Kothakote and while he was returning on his Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-43-H-7486, by observing all the rules and regulations of the traffic on the extreme left side of the road, when he reached near Government Hospital, Mittemari, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura, suddenly, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-40-F-657 came from Sadali towards Bagepalli in a rash and negligent manner, without observing any traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the same, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Chikkaballapura Government Hospital, and thereafter he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, for further treatment. It is his case that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards the medical expenses both as an inpatient as well as an outpatient. So also he has spent money under the heads of conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. With regard to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 said accident, a charge sheet is filed by the police against the driver of the said offending bus. 4. It is specifically alleged by the petitioner that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and working as a Security in "Fireball Securitas and consultant private limited" and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and he used to contribute his entire earnings towards maintaining his family. Because of these accidental injuries, the petitioner lost his monthly earnings which resulted in a financial loss to the petitioner. It is stated that, as respondent-Corporation is the owner of the offending bus, KSRTC is liable to pay the compensation and prays to award compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- under all the components. 5. Before the tribunal, respondent-Corporation appeared through its panel counsel and filed detailed objection statement denying the entire assertions and allegations made in the petition with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, so also, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 nature of accident alleged against the driver of the bus. It is specifically contended that, the said accident took place purely because of a rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the petitioner. He also contributed in causing the accident according to the respondent- Corporation. It is contended that, in fact, when the said accident took place, actually the bus was stationed and the passengers were getting down from the bus. Because of the road humps, the driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly and at that time, the petitioner by driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus. To avoid the accident, the driver of the bus took the bus towards the footpath. But even then, he could not avoid the accident. It is further stated that, colluding with the police, a false case is registered against the driver of the bus. Hence, amongst other grounds, it is prayed by the respondent-Corporation to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned tribunal framed in all four issues. To - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 prove the case of the petitioner’s claim, he himself entered the witness box as PW1 and he also examined Dr. Ramesh as PW2 to prove the disability so suffered by him and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The driver of the bus entered the witness box by name Mr. P. Lakshminarasimhaiah as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R1(a). The learned tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on assessment of the evidence placed on records, answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, Issue Nos. 3 partly in affirmative and held that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount Rs. I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES (Special Damages) 60,000.00 1. Expenses relating to: a) To treatment, hospitalization, medicines 26,310.00 b) nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure 20,000.00 2. Loss of earnings which the injured would have made had she not been injured, comprising: - a) Loss of earnings during period of treatment 16,000.00 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (Rs.8,000 x 12 x 18 x 20%) = Rs.3,45,600/- rounded of Rs.3,46,000/- 3,46,000.00 3. Future medical expenses 20,000.00 II NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES (General Damages) 4. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries 50,000.00 5. Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) 10,000.00 6. Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) - Total 4,88,310.00 7. Now, both the owner of the KSRTC bus and the claimant/petitioner are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment. As stated supra, the very liability fastened on the KSRTC is challenged by the KSRTC, by preferring separate appeal in MFA No.1738/2020 and the claimant seeks enhancement by preferring appeal in MFA.No.3200/2021. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner with all vehemence submits that, in view of the documents - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 produced by the petitioner before the tribunal, the said offence has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus in the manner alleged in the petition. He submits that, PW1 being the injured petitioner has reiterated all the assertions made in the petition with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. To prove the said fact of rash and negligent, he submits that the petitioner has produced certain investigation documents like the FIR, Scene of offence panchanama, Seizure Panchanama, Charge sheet, as well as Motor Vehicle Report, so also, the Wound Certificate marked at Exs.P1 to P8. He submits that, though there is a cross-examination directed to this PW1 attributing portion of the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, but this petitioner has denied all the suggestions so directed to him. To prove the injuries so sustained by the petitioner, he has examined PW2. He submits that though respondent No. 1 appeared before the tribunal and stated that, he was not rash and negligent in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 driving the bus, but he is responsible for causing the accident. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the award of compensation under the various heads is very much meager and it requires to be enhanced. As the petitioner was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, due to the accident, now he is deprived of his income because of the disability as stated by the doctor. He submits that, because of a meager award so passed by the tribunal, it requires enhancement. 10. Per contra Sri. Rajashekar S., the learned counsel for the respondent-KSRTC with all vehemence submits that, the said accident has taken place not because of any rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. He submits that, to avoid the major accident, the driver of the bus i.e., RW.1 took his vehicle towards the extreme left side of the road and even then the petitioner himself came to the right side of the road and dashed to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 the bus. Therefore, there is actual negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident. 11. In support of his submission, he relies upon the photographs at Ex.R1. These photographs show that, the said bus is stationed towards the extreme left side of the road, on the footpath covering most of the footpath area. Relying upon this, he submits that, to avoid the major incident RW1 has taken the bus to the left side of the road, but even then the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the bus. Therefore, there shall not be any rash and negligence be attributed against the driver of the said offending bus. He submits that, whatever the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side and it is to be reduced to a considerable extent. Though the petitioner alleges about the injuries so suffered but they are not proved in accordance with law. He would further submit that, the doctor who has treated the petitioner is not examined. Thus, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the KSRTC to dismiss the petition and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 allow the appeal. So also prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments on both the sides. Perused the records. 13. So far as the occurrence of the accident on 30.12.2017 at 07.30 p.m. is concerned, it is not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the cause of accident and it is at whose fault. PW1, being the petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, on 30.12.2017 at about 07.30 p.m. after completion of his work, he was returning on his Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. KA-43-H-7486 slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations on the left side of the road. When he came near Government Hospital Mittemari, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura, at that time, suddenly, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA- 40-F-657 came from Sadali towards Bagepalli in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 the Hero Honda Splendor on which the petitioner was traveling. Because of this impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person. This PW1 is cross-examined by the respondent-Corporation. Throughout the cross-examination, it is suggested that, this petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the bus. But all these suggestions are denied by the petitioner in toto. He denied the suggestions that, near the place of accident there are road humps etc. But these suggestions are denied. 14. Further, this PW1 relies upon various documents such as the copy of the FIR, Complaint, Charge sheet, Scene of offence panchanama, and Seizure panchanama marked at Exs.P1 to P5. From these documents, it shows that, in view of the said accident, a complaint was lodged against the driver of the said bus, alleging that because of his rash and negligent driving of the bus, the said accident has taken place. Police have filed charge sheet against - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 RW1 for the offence under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. This fact is not denied by the respondent-KSRTC. 15. The counsel for the KSRTC relied upon the photographs. On perusal of the scene of offence panchanama, so produced by the petitioner, it shows that when the petitioner was moving towards his house, at that time the said accident has taken place because of dashing of the bus to the motorcycle of the petitioner. Contents of this panchanama Ex. P3 are not denied. Ex. P4 is the Seizure panchanama of the bus being driven by RW1. This shows that, the said bus was of a red colour and towards the front right side of the bus there has been damage. The content of this Ex. P4 is also not denied by the respondent - Corporation. The sketch would have shown where exactly the said accident has taken place. On perusal of the scene of offence panchanama as well as the photographs, it shows that, the road is having a meager width and a bus could very well pass on the said road and there is no space available for passing of any other - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 vehicles coming from the opposite direction unless the said bus moves towards the left side of the road. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was moving towards his house after completion of his work on the said road and suddenly the bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. Evidently the right front portion of the bus is damaged as per the Seizure panchanama. Though it is the contention of the KSRTC that, the bus driver took the bus to the extreme left side of the road so as to make the petitioner to move on the road, but the evidence spoken by RW1 is very much silent. RW1 says that, it was the petitioner who was rash and negligent in driving the bus. But the facts so stated by the petitioner are corroborated by the evidence of this Ex.P2 - the complaint, Ex. P3 - the Scene of offence panchanama as well as Ex. P4 - the Seizure Panchanama of the bus. Where exactly the said accident has taken place is also stated in this panchanama, which is not disputed by the KSRTC. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 16. In view of all this factual features coupled with the evidence spoken to by the witnesses, it can be stated that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by RW1 in the manner alleged by the petitioner. The learned trial Court has rightly given the finding that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. 17. Now coming to the computation of the compensation as prayed by the petitioner. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,88,310/- in all under all the relevant heads. As per the Wound Certificate so produced by the petitioner, he has suffered the following injuries: Right knee un-displaced fracture of both the bones of right let tibia and fibula. Fracture of right femur and right patella and - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 Left index finger fracture. 18. As per the opinion of the doctor, all these injuries are grievous in nature. To prove the said fact, petitioner has spoken before the Court about the injuries suffered by him. There is no specific denial about the injuries being suffered by the petitioner in the cross-examination. To corroborate the evidence with regard to the injuries being suffered by the petitioner, PW2 is examined by the petitioner i.e., Dr. Ramesh B. According to his evidence, he examined the petitioner on 12.03.2019 for assessment of disability. At that time, the petitioner complained of "pain in right lower limb, difficult to squat, climb upstairs, stand on affected limb, shortening of limb and difficult to do daily routine activities." According to the doctor the petitioner has shortening of 4 cms right lower limb. Thus, he opines that, the petitioner used to walk with limping. Thus, by medically and clinically examining him, the doctor has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent physical disability to the extent of 40% of his right lower - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 limb, which is 20% to the whole body. He has also produced the case sheet, OPD cards, x-rays. While marking these documents, no little finger was raised by the respondent-Corporation. Though this PW2 is cross- examined by the respondent-Corporation, but nothing worth is elicited, so as to disbelieve his version given in the examination-in-chief. This PW2 has assessed disability based upon the clinical examination as well as based upon the medical documents so produced. RW1 never says that, this petitioner has not suffered any such injuries as stated by PW1 and PW2 in their respective evidence. 19. Even on perusal of the medical records so produced by the petitioner, they show that, this petitioner has suffered the aforesaid injuries and case sheet maintained by the Victoria Hospital shows, the nature of the fractures being suffered by the petitioner in the said road traffic accidents. Even the note sheet maintained by the hospital shows, the nature of the treatment administered on the petitioner in the Victoria Hospital. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 While marking this document, there is no objection being raised by the KSRTC. Thus, on perusal of the medical records as well as the evidence of the doctor and the evidence of PW1 in particular, it shows that, these multiple injuries must have made the petitioner to suffer a lot. This possibility cannot be ruled out. So while awarding the compensation, tribunal has taken into consideration the pecuniary damage as well as non- pecuniary damages. By considering such damages, the tribunal has awarded compensation towards treatment, hospitalization, medicines, nourishing, food and miscellaneous expenditure, loss of earning during treatment period, loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, pain, suffering, trauma, injuries, and loss of amenities etc. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, these injuries must have idled the petitioner at least for a period of 4 months as he has suffered multiple fractures and he was unable to walk. This fact is not - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 disputed by the KSRTC. The petitioner has taken the treatment as an inpatient for 17 days in the hospital and thereafter, he has attended the hospital as an outpatient. So therefore towards "treatment, hospitalization and medicines", the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.26,310/-, which requires no interference. 21. So far as "nourishment, food and miscellaneous expenses" is concerned, tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which requires no interference. These injuries must have idled the petitioner at least for a period of 4 months as rightly stated by the counsel for the petitioner. 22. So far as income of the petitioner is concerned, though the petitioner alleges that, he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but no document is produced by the petitioner to show his actual proof of income. In the absence of proof of income, we have to rely upon the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per said guidelines, the accident has taken - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 place in the year 2017. The proper notional income that has to be calculated is at Rs.11,000/-. But the tribunal has erred in taking the notional income at Rs.8,000/-, which is to be corrected now. As per the evidence of the doctor, the petitioner suffered the total disability of 30% to the whole body. But the tribunal has assessed disability at 20% to the whole body. As the petitioner is a young boy, aged 21 years, by this time the disability must have been reduced to some considerable extent because of the treatment taken by him. So whatever disability is taken by the tribunal appears to be correct and no interference is required. As the petitioner was aged 21 years at the time of accident, in view of the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% is to be added towards future prospects. That comes to Rs.15,400/-. Thus, the notional income of the petitioner, comes to Rs. 15,400/-. As the tribunal has taken the disability to the extent of 20%, there will be loss of future income of the petitioner to the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 extent of 20%. The petitioner was aged 21 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier that is applicable is '18'. Thus, the loss of future earning capacity on account of disability would be Rs.6,65,280/- (15,400 x 12 x 18 x 20/100) as against Rs.3,46,000/-. 23. The tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards the "future medical expenses" and it is properly assessed by the tribunal, it requires no interference. 24. So far as "pain, suffering and trauma" is concerned, the tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.50,000/-. It requires no interference. 25. The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 17 days and must have been idled for four months because of these injuries. During this period he must have lost his income. Therefore, under this "loss of income during laid up period", it is required to award compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.44,000/- (11,000 x 4) under this head. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 26. The tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards "loss of amenities". In view of the multiple fractures being sustained by the petitioner and now he is limping because of the fractures etc., the petitioner with all frustrations, inconvenience and discomfort has to survive. It is submitted that, even the petitioner has lost his proper marriage prospects. In view of the injuries being suffered by the petitioner, the compensation under the head loss of amenities of Rs.30,000/-, if awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for the compensation as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount Rs. 1. For treatment, hospitalization and medicines 26,310.00 2. Nourishment, food, miscellaneous expenditure and attendant charges 20,000.00 3. Loss of future income due to disability 6,65,280.00 4. Future medical expenses 20,000.00 5. Pain, suffering and trauma 50,000.00 6. Loss of amenities 30,000.00 7. Loss of income during laid up period 44,000.00 Total 8,55,590.00 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 27. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for compensation of Rs.8,55,590/- under all the relevant heads together with the interest of 6% per annum on enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization. Respondent to deposit the compensation amount within 6 weeks from the date of the judgment together with the interest. 28. Resultantly, pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed in MFA.No. 1738/2020 is dismissed. (ii) The appeal filed in MFA No.3200/2021 is allowed. (iii) The petitioner/claimant is held entitle for compensation of Rs.8,55,590/- together with interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till its realization. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29769 MFA No. 1738 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3200 of 2021 (iv) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.1541/2018 dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-2) is hereby modified to the above extent. (v) So far as deposit and release is concerned, the order of the tribunal remains unaltered. (vi) There shall be modified award accordingly. (vii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34