- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29706 MFA No. 4260 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4260 OF 2014(MV-DM) BETWEEN: THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER KSRTC, MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, BANGALORE …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LOKESH S/O VISHWANATHACHARY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.135, GUDDENAHALLY KOPPALU, HASSAN-573 201 (R C OWNER OF LORRY) 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., II FLOOR, LAXMI COMPLEX OPP. BSNL BHAVAN B M ROAD HASSAN-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:07.06.2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1853/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDITIONAL SENIOR Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29706 MFA No. 4260 of 2014 CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MANGALOR, D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Senior Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C, Mangalore Division, against the judgment and award dated 07.04.2014 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru, D.K., in MVC No.1853 of 2010. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 18.09.2007, K.S.R.T.C. Rajahamsa Bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F- 1890 was plying in the route from Bangalore to Puttur and when the said Bus reached near Muthanapalya on Ν.Η.48, a private lorry bearing registration No.KA-13/A-1247 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the KSRTC Bus. As a result, the KSRTC bus was damaged and Kudoor police registered a case in Cr.No.232/07 against the lorry driver. The petitioner-KSRTC filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,53,457/- for the damages caused to the bus in the accident. The Tribunal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29706 MFA No. 4260 of 2014 considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.1,19,148/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-KSRTC has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the corporation got the bus repaired by spending a sum of Rs.54,859/-. The said bus was shifted from accident spot to Kuntikana, Mangalore by incurring expenses of Rs.10,000/- and the said bus could not be used in the said route for a period of 31 days, since it was under repair. There was loss of revenue of Rs.3,99,598/- to the petitioner. It is contended that the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,19,148/- and they have not granted Rs.10,000/- towards shifting charges. It is further contended that the 1st respondent is the R.C. owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the lorry. Thus, respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to recover the said compensation. 4. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding loss of revenue for 20 days. The accident took place - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29706 MFA No. 4260 of 2014 on 18.09.2007 and they have not used the bus for 31 days. After conducting an IMV examination by the RTO, it was kept idle for 31 days. Tribunal assessed the loss of revenue for 20 days to a sum of Rs.2,57,159/- and further deducted 50% towards diesel and maintenance expenditure and later, considered Rs.1,28,579/- towards loss of revenue for 20 days. But, again 50% is deducted wrongly and granted only Rs.64,289/- without any reason. Therefore, requested for modification of the order. 5. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties. 6. By order dated 13.03.2026, it was observed that as per the citation in the case of NWKRTC Vs. Pushpaja decided in MFA No.22143 of 2009 dated 10.01.2014, statutory regulations require corporation to have a spare vehicle/reserve vehicle for being plied in the eventuality of the vehicle to which the permit is granted. When it is stationed for repair, the question of granting the loss of revenue does not arise. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29706 MFA No. 4260 of 2014 7. There is no dispute regarding the damage caused to the KSRTC bus. They stated that they incurred Rs.54,859/- towards damages and the said amount is already granted by the Tribunal, and it includes Rs.10,000/- for transportation from the place of accident to the workshop. The repairs include spare parts and labour charges and the said amount is already granted by the Tribunal. 8. Regarding the loss of revenue for a period of 31 days, the Tribunal observed that the petitioner filed Exhibit P1 to show the loss of revenue as Rs.3,85,739/-. But in the said statement, the present bus number is not mentioned and the route of the bus is mentioned as 125 and again from Puttur to Bangalore. Therefore, it can be presumed that the said bus was plying in the above route prior to the accident. As per Exhibit P2, accident occurred on 18.09.2007 and it was brought to the garage on 27.09.2007, 10 days after the accident. As such, it was held that KSRTC authorities are not entitled for claiming loss of revenue for the said period and the loss of revenue was calculated only for 20 days, i.e. Rs.2,57,159/- and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29706 MFA No. 4260 of 2014 after deducting the diesel and maintenance charges, it was held that they are entitled for Rs.1,28,579/-. 9. The petitioner-KSRTC disputed the further deduction of 50% without any basis. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the citation in Pushpaja case (Supra) and held it is the duty of the insured to keep a spare vehicle to ply on the same route, when it was sent for repair and as per Section 72(2) of the MV Act, it is one of the conditions of the permit. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for loss of revenue for 20 days to an extent of Rs.1,28,579/-. But wrongly deducted another 50% without any basis. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to grant total compensation of Rs.1,83,438/- (1,28,579 + 54,859). Thus, appellant-KSRTC is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,83,438/- as against Rs.1,19,148/- granted by the tribunal. 10. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Appellant-KSRTC is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,83,438/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29706 MFA No. 4260 of 2014 (iii) The respondent insurance company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit balance amount of Rs.64,290/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76