- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499752015 NC: 2026:KHC:46507 MFA No. 6616 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6616 OF 2015 (MV-DM) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DIVISIONAL OFFICE DAVANAGERE KSRTC REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUMANGALA A SWAMY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SARVANANAN S/O SUBBAN DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO T N 28/AC-4649 D NO.3/95 AT FINAV MUSARI VILLAGE THIRACHANAGODDU TALUK NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNAD 2. R JAYARAJ S/O RAMASWAMY OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.T N 28/AC-4649 R/O 26-28 KANDIPALAYAM WARD ELUR, NAMAKKAL DISTIRCT TAMILNADU STATE Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499752015 NC: 2026:KHC:46507 MFA No. 6616 of 2015 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD MELAGIRI PLAZA, MCC B BLOCK OPP: DENTAL COLLEGE DAVANAGERE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWMAY., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O DTD: 13.03.2020 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.4.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.689/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-5, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/KSRTC under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 20.4.2015 passed in MVC No.689/2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT-5, Davanagere for setting aside the order of the tribunal. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499752015 NC: 2026:KHC:46507 MFA No. 6616 of 2015 The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. On 03.12.2011 bus met with an accident and the claimant filed claim petition claiming damages of Rs.1,43,000/-. But the Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted Rs.28,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the amount granted is on lower side, so the Tribunal held that Ex.P7 cannot be relied upon, because the Job card which shows a repair of damages to the bus is not in accordance with IMV report. The Tribunal failed to consider that the compensation in case of personal injury includes loss of income. It was held by the Tribunal that alternative bus was run in the place of damaged one and there is no proof of loss of revenue. As per the citation reported in ILR 1990 of Kar 1493, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499752015 NC: 2026:KHC:46507 MFA No. 6616 of 2015 Tribunal has to award compensation for both personal injury and damages to the property of the third party, arising out of the accident. The bus was kept idle for 19 days and the loss of income is assessed at Rs.1,19,670/-. But the tribunal misbelieved and on flimsy grounds not awarded the compensation. The documents produced by appellant such as GSO regarding CC charges as per Ex.P8 was not considered. Therefore, requested the court to set aside the order. 5. Heard the arguments of the respondent counsel. 6. The claim petition is filed by KSRTC claiming damages for Rs.1,43,000/- on the ground that on 03.12.2011 bus met with an accident due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN- 28/AC-4649 which dashed the bus from back side. As a result, the bus sustained damages to the rear wheel, rear wind screen glass, rear right side tail lamp unit, rear right side portion of bumper, right side rear portion of body and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010499752015 NC: 2026:KHC:46507 MFA No. 6616 of 2015 other damages. Bus was shifted to the Divisional Workshop and repaired on 06.12.2011 by spending an amount of Rs.23,133/-. Due to the damages sustained in the accident, it was not used for 15 days. The petitioner sustained loss of Rs.7,978/- per day and it amounts to Rs.1,19,670/- and the legal notice charge is Rs.500/-. KSRTC has admitted that they have run the alternative bus, during the period of repair. As such, considering the expenses spent by them for repair, tribunal had rightly granted Rs.28,000/- and this court finds no reason to interfere with the said award. In the result, appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Amount in deposit is to be transferred to MACT. sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59