- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26614 MFA No. 6138 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6138 OF 2022(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER INTERNAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD K.S.R.T.C MANDYA DIVISION MANDYA REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.S.R.T.C, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER/SRI. S. VARIDHI UPADHYA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT #46, 5TH BLOCK MADHUVANA LAYOUT SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE MYSURU-570 008 2. MR. P. RAJU MAJOR S/O PAPAIAH R/O #54, OFFICIAL COLONY K.R.S, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-572 607 (OWNER OF TATA INDIA LAXURY CAR TAXI KA 11-A-5227) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26614 MFA No. 6138 of 2022 3. THE MANAGER S.B.I GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPANY GROUND AND 1ST FLOOR RUKMINI TOWERS 3/1 PLAT FORM ROAD RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KENCHEGOWDA B.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. SANMUKH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.31.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1293/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,43,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the KSRTC against the impugned judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.1293/2013 dated 31.01.2022 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mysuru - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26614 MFA No. 6138 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.5,43,000/- to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the KSRTC has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. 3. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability of the claimant as 32.2% by ignoring the positive evidence of PW.3-Doctor who admitted that there is no functional disability. Apart from that, she has also contended that the claimant in his cross-examination has stated that due to the injuries, his educational prospects have not been affected in any manner. As such, the Tribunal has erred in considering the disability. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- claimant supported the impugned judgment and award and prays to dismiss the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26614 MFA No. 6138 of 2022 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the evidence and documents available on record. 6. As could be gathered from the evidence of CW.1- Disability Certificate, wherein the Doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 32.2% disability to the whole body, as the claimant has sustained injuries to his head and as such, the functional disability has to be considered as 32.2%. 7. It is not disputed by the KSRTC that the claimant has not sustained injuries to his head. On the other hand, it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that because of the same, his educational prospects have not been affected in any manner. However, the fact remains that the claimant has sustained head injury and the Tribunal has rightly calculated the disability, which does not call for any interference. 8. Since the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has rightly granted compensation under all the heads, the same do no require any interference. Even otherwise, the claimant has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26614 MFA No. 6138 of 2022 award. In such circumstance, I am of the considered view that there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49