HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7479 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5293 OF 2018 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 7479/2018 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL DIVISION DEPOT, NO.5, BENGALURU, OWNER OF KSRTC BUS NO.KA-40-F-477, NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GURUMURTHY.B S/O. BHOJA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DRIVER BY PROFESSION, R/O. TINKER BABU GARAGE ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALUR. 2. SRI. H.M.YOGANANDA S/O. H.B.YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. NO.18, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, SHIVANAGAR, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -2- RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010, DRIVER OF KSRTC BUS NO.KA-40-F-477. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 09.10.2018, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.102/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MMACT, CHIKKAMGALUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,78,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 5293/2018 BETWEEN: SRI. GURUMURTHY. B S/O BHOJA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC:DRIVER, R/O TINKER BABU GARAGE ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA, CHIKMAGALORE-577 101 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.M.YOGANANDA S/O H.B.YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O NO.18, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL DIVISION DEPOT, NO.5, BENGALURU-560 016. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 11.12.2023, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -3- NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15/02/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.102/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals seek to challenge the Judgment and award dated 15.02.2018 in MVC No.102/2016 passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT, Chikkamagaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,78,400/- to the claimant (appellant in MFA No.5293/2018) along with interest at 6% per annum. 2. Both the appeals are filed questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Karnataka State Road Transport HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -4- Corporation (KSRTC) who is the appellant in MFA No.7479/2018 seeks a reduction of the amount awarded, while the learned counsel for the claimant seeks for enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 28.11.2013 at around 11.00 p.m., when the appellant/claimant was driving a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-18/AA.4599 near Muguluvalli village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA 40/F 477 stated to be driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the Lorry, which was being driven in the opposite direction. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fractures in his legs and was hospitalized at M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. The appellant/claimant had also taken treatment as an in-patient as well as an out- patient for more than six months and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It was the case of the appellant/claimant that he was working as a lorry driver HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -5- and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. However, due to the accident and injuries caused, he was unable to discharge his day-to-day work. Thus a claim petition was filed. The petition was contested by the respondents being driver of the KSRTC bus and it’s owner. 4. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues based on the pleadings of the parties: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 28.11.2013, at about 11.00 p.m., while he was proceeding in the Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA 18/AA 4599 near Muguluvalli village, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, respondent No.1 being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Regn.No.KA.40/F-477 drove the same in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries? 2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the reasons stated in the written statement? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4. What order?” 5. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor as P.W.2 while respondent No.1 who is the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as R.W.1. The learned HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -6- Tribunal after examining the evidence and documents filed by the parties reached a conclusion that considering the nature of injuries and the fact that the appellant/claimant was not in a position to walk independently during the treatment period, the compensation was to be awarded towards various heads including pain and sufferings, medical expenses and attendant charges. In addition, the compensation was also awarded towards loss of future income by taking the percentage of disability at 10%. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 01. Pain and suffering Rs. 90,000-00 02. Medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00 03. Attendant’s charges and transportation Rs. 10,000-00 04. Permanent disability Rs.1,34,000-00 05. Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 24,000-00 Total Rs.2,78,400-00 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/KSRTC raises three contentions. Firstly, he submits that the appellant/claimant has not produced any discharge HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -7- summary in support of the injuries sustained by him. Secondly, he submits that no proof of claimant being a driver has been placed on record. Lastly, he submits that no evidence of disability has been placed on record by the claimant. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand submits that the awarded amount requires to be enhanced. He submits that firstly, there has been no award on the head of loss of amenities. Secondly, that the disability assessed by the doctor at 22% was reduced by the learned Tribunal to 10%. Learned counsel further submits that when there is a finding that the appellant/ claimant is a driver and that he is unable to perform his daily tasks in the same manner, the learned Tribunal could not have reduced the percentage of disability. 7.1. In addition, and with regard to challenge raised by the respondent/KSRTC, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claimant had filed copies of the various documents including IMV report, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -8- wound certificate, disability certificate and an x-ray before the learned Tribunal and these were marked as Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 respectively before the learned Tribunal. In addition, he submits that since the accident has occurred while the claimant was driving a Lorry, and this is reported in the FIR, complaint as well as the charge sheet [Ex.P1 to Ex.P3], there can be no issue as to whether he is a driver or not. Additionally, it is contended that nothing adverse was elucidated in the cross-examination of the claimant. Reliance is also placed on the finding of the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Award in this behalf. 8. The issue for consideration before this Court is, whether the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in accordance with settled principles? 9. As stated above, the record reflects that the claim petition was filed by the claimant claiming compensation. The claimant in his claim petition sets out that he was the driving a Lorry and the KSRTC bus being driven rashly and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -9- with extensive speed collided with the Lorry. He further submits that he sustained several fractures and he was treated as in-patient in the M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and as an outpatient for 6 months. The relevant extract of his evidence affidavit filed by P.W.1 is set out below: “That on 28.11.2013 at about 11.00 P.M., I was proceeding in the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA- 18/AA-4599 along with Silver Trees driven by myself slowly, cautiously and by observing all traffic rules. While I was so proceeding near Mugulavalli Village, Chikmagalur Taluk, the Respondent No.1 being the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40/F-477 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed to the Lorry in which I was proceeding. Due to the accident, I have sustained Bindondylar fracture right tibia, fracture intercondylar eminence and also grievous injuries to right thigh, right knee, right ankle and other parts of the body. Immediately, after the accident, I was shifted M.G.Hospital, Chikmagalur where I have taken treatment as in-patient as well as outpatient for more than 6 months and I have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses. Even now I am under treatment and I require some more amount for my future and better treatment since I have to undergo another operation. [Emphasis Supplied] 10. In addition, the claimant has also produced a copy of the Karnataka Medical Department Wound Certificate as Ex.P6 as well as the disability certificate, which was proved by him and exhibited as Ex.P7. The wound HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -10- certificate clearly sets out the injury of the claimant including the fractures sustained in the following terms. “1. Contusion over right thigh measuring 6x6 cm. 2. Contusion over right knee measuring 6x6 cm. 3. Abrasion over right ankle measuring 3x2 cm. x-ray No.1182/29.11.2013 Bicondylar fracture tibia Fracture Intercondylar eminence. Injury No.2 corresponding fractures grievous in nature, rest of injuries are simple in nature.” 11. The claimant has also examined P.W.2, his treating doctor working in the M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. The doctor has after examining the records as well as the disability certificate, given his evidence to say that the claimant is suffering from 22% permanent physical disability of his right lower limb. It is further stated in the evidence that it is difficult for him to carry weight or climb stairs or to do any hard work as well as the fact that, as a driver it is difficult for him to drive a long distance. P.W.2 has further stated that although the fracture is healed but the claimant has restriction in his knee and ankle movements, the disability has been assessed. The relevant extract of the deposition of P.W.2 is as under: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -11- “EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT Duly sworn on 03/01/2018. Name : Dr.K.P.Hebbar Father's name : late. K.N.Hebbar Age : 64 years Occupation : Orthopedic Surgeon Address : M.G.Hospital, Chikmagalur. CHIEF EXAMINATION BY SRI.KMLG ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER I have been working in this hospital since September 2015 till today. I have seen one patient Mr.Gurumurthy aged about 48 years on 10/11/2017 who had come for the disability certificate. On the basis of the records he has produced and also by clinical and radiological examination I have issued the disability certificate as per the guidelines of the central government. He has got 22% of permanent physical disability to his right lower limb. So it is difficult for him to do any hard work for a long time and carrying weights and climbing stairs is difficult for him. As a driver it is difficult for him to drive for a long distance and chances of getting pain and swelling to the right knee joint cannot be ruled out. As per the records he met with an RTA on 28/11/2013 and he was treated in our hospital conservatively without any operation. As per the x-ray taken on 10/11/2017 the fracture he sustained has healed completely but still he has got restriction of the knee and ankle movements.” [Emphasis Supplied] 12. The learned Tribunal after examining the evidence produced has by the Impugned Award found that there is no doubt that the appellant/claimant is a Lorry driver by profession and also that during the course of cross- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -12- examination of the doctor, nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence. However the learned Tribunal has reduced the disability to 10%. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award in this behalf is set out below: “16. It is case of the petitioner that prior to the accident he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Except his oral say, he has not produced any documentary evidence. From Ex.p2 and admitted fact of occurrence of accident and he was driving the Lorry, it is clear that the petitioner is a driver by profession. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has sustained permanent disability. Considering the profession of petitioner, in the absence of documents, monthly income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.8,000/-. To prove the percentage of disability, the petitioner has examined P.W.2. Even though P.W.2 has not treated the petitioner, but he has verified the records of District government Hospital, Chikkamagaluru and he has assessed the percentage of disability considering the restriction of movement of right knee and right ankle. During the course of cross examination of P.W.2 except the fact that he has not treated the petitioner, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. As per Ex.P7, P.W.2 has assessed the percentage of disability towards right lower limb. The same is required to be converted towards entire body. He has assessed the disability at 22%. In the evidence of P.W.2 he has stated that even though the petitioner is able to drive the vehicle, but he can not discharge his work as a driver for long driving. Therefore, percentage of disability is taken as 10%.” [Emphasis Supplied] 13. Learned counsel for the claimant has also contended that no amount has been awarded for loss of amenities. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -13- The learned counsel for the KSRTC states that since Rs.90,000/- has been awarded towards pain and sufferings, no amount towards loss of amenities is required. The record however reflects that the amount of Rs.90,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the injuries sustained and after examining the wound certificate and fractures. Paragraph No.13 of the Impugned Award in this behalf is set out below: “13. Issue No.3: In this case the petitioner has claimed total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. To prove what are the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, the petitioner has relied on Ex.P6 wound certificate. As per Ex.P6 wound certificate, the petitioner has sustained three simple injuries and bicondylar fracture of tibia and fracture of intercondylar eminence. From going through Ex.P6, it is clear that the petitioner has sustained two fractures in right leg, which resulted in permanent disability as per Ex.P7. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, compensation of Rs.90,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards pain and suffering.” [Emphasis Supplied] 14. On the examination of the disability, this Court finds that evidence of P.W.2 shows that the claimant is not able to drive for a long time and also has restriction of knee and ankle movement. Clearly, while the party driving a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -14- vehicle would require complete freedom to use his knee and ankle and in fact the vehicular peddles can only be used by ankle movement and knees are essential for driving of any type of vehicle. Thus, for the KSRTC to state that since the fracture is healed completely, the appellant/claimant should not be awarded any compensation cannot be sustained. Once, the evidence of the doctor (which is reproduced above) sets out that it is difficult for the claimant to drive for a long distance as well as there is restriction in his knee and his ankle movement, the functional disability should have been at least the percentage of physical disability. 15. Since the appellant is 45 Years at the time of the accident and the accident is of the year 2013, the notional income for the year 2013 is Rs.8,000/- and the multiplier for deductions would be ‘14’. 16. Thus, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is re-assessed in the following manner: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -15- Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 01 Pain and suffering 90,000-00 02 Medical expenses 20,000-00 03 Attendant Charges 10,000-00 04 Permanent disability [Rs.8,000x22%x12x14] 2,95,680-00 05 Loss of income during laid up period 24,000-00 Total 4,39,680-00 Less: awarded by Tribunal 2,78,400-00 Enhanced compensation 1,61,280-00 17. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,39,680/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 18. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions: ORDER (i) M.F.A.No.7479/2018 is dismissed. (ii) M.F.A.No.5293/2018 is partly allowed. (iii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 15.02.2018 in MVC No.102/2016 passed by the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -16- Principal District Judge and MACT, Chikkamagalur, is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,61,280/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.2,78,400/- that has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (v) The respondent/KSRTC shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. (vi) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6542 MFA No. 7479 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 5293 of 2018 -17- (vii) The amount in deposit by the KSRTC before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal within a week. (viii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (ix) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. (x) No order as to costs. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA