- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2910 OF 2024 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 612 OF 2024 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2910/2024: BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE SHANTHINAGAR, K H ROAD BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MALLIKARJUNA R N S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A AND POST RAMANAHALLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA-572 217. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3555/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SMALL Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-10), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 15,92,000/- WIT INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. IN MFA NO. 612/2024: BETWEEN: SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R.N. S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT RAMANAHALLI, AT POST TIPTUR TALUK,TUMKUR KARNATAKA-572 217. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.3555/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SCJ ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-10, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT MFA No.2910/2024 is filed by Managing Director of KSRTC, Central Office and MFA No.612/2024 is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 03.10.2023 passed by the XIV Additional Small Causes Judge, ACMM and Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.3555 of 2022. 2. The injured claimant, aged 29 years, met with an accident on 31.05.2022, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.15,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, MFA No.2910/2024 is preferred by the KSRTC in which it is mainly contended that claimant was riding the motorcycle along with Mallikarjun as a pillion rider from Honnavalli towards Bidaregudi Road. While the bus was going ahead of him, he gave horn/sign to overtake the bus. As the bus was moved towards left side, he was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 overtaking the bus. But the driver took the bus towards right side and front side of the bus touched to the motorcycle. As a result, both of them fell down. Front wheel of the bus ran over on his left hand. Pillion rider has not sustained any injuries. But he gave complaint on the next day stating the manner of accident. Exhibit P8 is the charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus. As per Exhibit P17 - IMV report of the of the motorcycle and Exhibit R10-photos, no major damages sustained to the motorcycle. Driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and he stated that after boarding the passengers in Hornavalli bus stop, he was moving the bus slowly, and rider of the motor cycle along with pillion rider came in the same direction in a high speed in rash and negligent manner and overtook the bus. At that time, another motor cycle came from opposite direction and the right handle of the motor cycle of the claimant, touched the opposite motorcycle and he lost balance, fell down near the front right side wheel of the bus. As the driver of the bus could not anticipate such incident, he could not avoid the accident and the bus has not touched the motorcycle. Motorcycle has not sustained any major damages except scratches. Bus also not sustained any damages as per - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 IMV report under Ex.P17. Pillion rider has also not sustained any injury. Only the claimant who was riding the motorcycle sustained injury. If at all the bus dashed any portion of the motorcycle as per the police records, pillion rider would have also sustained major injuries and the motorcycle would have sustained major damages. 4. Exhibit P3 is the spot mahazar. As per Exhibit P3, the width of the road was 18 feet. PW1 during cross examination stated that there was 10 feet wide space on his right side. If the bus has moved to the right side of the claimant, the claimant would have taken his motorcycle to the right side as there was sufficient space on his right side. But as another motorcycle came from opposite direction, he could not take his motorcycle to the right side and his right side handle touched the opposite motorcycle, and as a result, he lost balance and came in contact with front right side wheel of the bus and sustained injury. As per Exhibit P3, the width of the road is 18 feet and PW1 admitted that there was 10 feet space available on the right side. Exhibit P4 is the sketch of the spot of the accident. And, as per P4, accident occurred in the middle of the road. No major damages to the motorcycle and no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 damage to the rear portion of the scooter. As per Exhibit P17, Except scratch marks, no major damages to the rear portion of the scooter. Rider could not get the registration number and owner details of the another motorcycle which came from opposite direction. As such, he gave complaint against the bus on the next day of the accident. RW1 gave complaints to the police department under Exhibits R2 to R5. But they have not taken any action against his complaint. The Tribunal ought to have held that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the police also mechanically filed charge sheet against him. PW5 is the marketing manager. He is not a competent person to give evidence about estimated cost of the prosthesis. PW4 has not stated whether prosthesis can be attached and used for amputated upper limb, as he is not an expert witness. The cost of the artificial limb varies depending upon quality and mechanism. Petitioner was an agricultural labour and whether he can use such sophisticated/highly mechanized artificial limb, is a mute question and the amount granted under the said head is excessive. Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.12,500/- per month and also whole body disability as 45% and granted - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 excessive compensation of Rs.11,47,500/- towards loss of future income. Therefore, requested to set aside the award of the Tribunal. 5. MFA No.612/2024 is preferred by the claimant mainly contending that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards pain and suffering as he sustained a crushed wound and other injuries, and also sustained amputation above elbow with a stump and was inpatient for 23 days. It is further contended that the doctor assessed the disability as 85%, but the Tribunal has taken 45% disability to the whole body. In fact, it is to be considered as 100% disability as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 11 SCC 343 (decided in Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 dated 18.10.2010 and income of the claimant is to be considered as Rs.40,000/- per month. It is contended that loss of future prospects is not granted as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. (C.A. No.2499- 2500/2018 dated 06.04.2018), Syed Saidq Kumar 2014 SAR - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 Civil 308, Civil Appeal No.2217/2018, Jagadeesh Vs,. Mohan and another Dated 06.03.2018, Civil Appeal No.2567/2020 Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and another dated 17.09.2020. The Tribunal has granted only Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of future medical expenses, which is on lower side, as it was observed that claimant needs one more surgery with cost of Rs.9,68,263/- as per Exhibit P27-estimation copy. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the KSRTC is that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Driver of the bus was examined as RW1 on behalf of KSRTC and he narrated the manner of accident. In fact, the right side of the motorcycle overtaken the bus and when opposite motorcycle came, he turned his motorcycle to the right side and fell down and came under the wheel of the bus and thus Petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of the two wheeler bearing number KA 44 W 7236, are not impleaded. He further stated that driver sent complaints to the jurisdictional Sub- Inspectors, Circle-Inspector and SP through speed post. But - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 claimant colluded with police and filed false case against driver of the bus. He filed the copies of the complaints. 7. It is further stated that while rider of the motorcycle overtook the bus, another two wheeler came from opposite side carrying one luggage bag. The handle of the petitioner's bike touched the luggage bag of the said two wheeler. As a result, he fell down, and left hand and left leg of the petitioner touched the front right side tyre of the bus and he sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that pillion rider has not sustained any injury. He gave complaint on the next day. As he could not get the details of another motorcycle, he falsely gave complaint against the driver of the bus. Though the said suggestions were made to PW1, he denied the same. 8. RW1 has not given any complaint to the depot manager immediately after the accident stating that there is no negligence on his part. It is simply stated that he gave complaints to the police at different cadres. When they have not registered the complaint, the managing director of KSRTC might have taken steps to file a private complaint. But they failed to do so. It is further stated that there was no damage to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 the hind portion of the motorcycle as per Exhibit P7. The details of the other motorcycle which was coming from opposite direction was not given by RW 1 or by the department of KSRTC. In the police records, nowhere the details of another motorcycle coming from opposite direction is mentioned. Except the copy of the complaint given by R.W.1 to show the involvement of another motorcycle, there is no other attempt made by him to corroborate his version, and accordingly, held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus. 9. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 10. Complainant is not examined by the petitioners or by the respondent for the reasons best known to them. He is an advocate. He is an eyewitness and proper person to depose regarding the manner of accident. The appellant KSRTC mainly contended that accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and not due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that there is contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and it is to be considered. It is for the KSRTC to plead and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 prove the contributory negligence, but they failed to do so. Therefore, this court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. 11. It is further contented that Tribunal granted Rs.3,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. PW5 is not a competent person and he is a Marketing Manager of Karai Cosmetics and Orthotics, Bangalore. He stated that petitioner requires left above elbow prosthesis costs around Rs.9,68,263/- and the maintenance of the same. For maintenance, it requires Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and he produced the estimated copy under Exhibit P27. In the cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that he is MBA graduate and it was suggested to him that he is not a competent person to give evidence. 12. As per wound certificate Exhibit P7, the petitioner claimant sustained the following injuries: “As per the Wound certificate, discharge summary and case sheet produced at Ex.P.7, Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.20, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries i.e., 1) Fresh crushed wound over left elbow measuring 20 cm x 6 cm muscles are tarred, artery, veins, nerves damaged, dislocation of elbow joint present, heavy bleeding +, 2) Fresh abrasion over left side of hypogasxium and umbilical region, 2) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 Fresh abrasion over right side of iliac region and hypoguxium 4 x 3 cm, 4) Fresh abrasion over left side above the left eye brow 2x0.5 cm, 5) Fresh abrasion over left temporal region 1x1 cm. 6) Fresh abrasion over left zygomatic region of face, 7) Fresh abrasion over anterior surface of face, 8) Fresh abrasion over cutex of nose 2x1 cm, 9) Fresh contusion over right side of nose 1x1 cm, 10) Fresh abrasion over left foot in muscles, 11) Fresh laceration over right thumb 1x2 cm and 12) Fresh abrasion over vertical surface of right wrist 3x0.5 cms.” 13. Out of the above injuries, first injury is grievous in nature and injuries 2 to 12 are simple in nature. As per Exhibit P.11-discharge summary, he was hospitalized for a period of 23 days. PW4 is a treated doctor. He assessed the disability as 85%. For amputation of trans-humoral elbow-elbow para- perpetual upto upper one third arm. The contention of the learned counsel of the KSRTC is that PW4 has not suggested any artificial limb and PW5 is not a competent person. 14. Though the petitioner has stated that he was working as an agricultural labourer and earning Rs.40,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. Therefore, notional income is to be taken at the rate of Rs.15,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 Authority. Petitioner was aged 29 years and the relevant multiplier is 17 and it is not in dispute. 15. Petitioner examined doctors as P.Ws.3 and 4 doctors. Exhibit P7 is the wound certificate and Exhibit P11 is discharge summary doctor and other medical records are also filed. PW3 stated that he treated the petitioner at Honnavalli Government Hospital, Tiptur and Exhibit P22 and Exhibit P23 are marked through him. PW4 is an Orthopedic surgeon. He stated that petitioner sustained type 3C open fracture dislocation of the left elbow and he was treated with elbow amputation. The stump was the additional components of amputation. PW4 assessed the disability of trans humeral (above elbow) upto 1/3rd of arm i.e. 85% for the purpose of calculation. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take 85% disability. As the disability is more than 20%, the petitioner is entitled for future prospects as per the judgment of this court If the disability is more than 25%, petitioner is entitled for future prospects as per the judgment of this court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Abdul, son of Mehaboob Tahasildar and Others (M.F.A. No.103807/2016 c/w. M.F.A. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 No.103835/2016 decided on 27.05.2022). The petitioner was aged 29 years and therefore, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. Thus, loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.37,62,780/- (15,500+40%x12x17x85%). 16. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, occupation of the claimant and the other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities, and Rs.60,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. He might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 4 months. Therefore, Rs.62,000/- (15,500x4) is granted towards loss of income during the laid up period. The Tribunal granted Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses and the same is confirmed. The Tribunal has rightly considered that the petitioner requires left above elbow prosthesis and it is to be changed periodically and accordingly, granted Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses and therefore, this court finds no reason to interfere with the same. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 17. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.43,38,780/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.15,92,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of future income 37,62,780/- 2. Medical expenses 4,000/- 3. Pain and Suffering 1,00,000/- 4. Loss of amenities 50,000/- 5. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 60,000/- 6. Loss of earning during the laid up period 62,000/- 7. Future Medical expenses 3,00,000/- Total 43,38,780/- 19. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) M.F.A. No.612/2024 is allowed in part, and M.F.A. No.2910/2024 is dismissed. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20297 MFA No. 2910 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 612 of 2024 (ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.43,38,780/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The claim of contributory negligence by the rider of motor cycle is rejected. (iv) The KSRTC has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.27,46,780/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (v) The amount already deposited by the KSRTC shall be transferred to Tribunal. (vi) On such deposit, the claimant 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.: 1