- 1 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25488 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NWKRTC HAVERI, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI. (OWNER OF THE SELF INSURANCE OF THE KSRTC BEARING NO.KA-27/F-110 BY ITS HIREKERUR DEPOT, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE) AND: L. PRAVEENKUMAR S/O LAXMICHAND, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: RICE MILL PARTNER, R/O: CHANNAKESHAV NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12-07- 2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.115/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF ₹4,37,238/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION & ETC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:10 +0530 - 2 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Haveri, (’Corporation’ for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur (‘the Tribunal’ for short), in M.V.C. No.115/2006, whereby compensation of ₹4,37,238/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization was awarded. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (’M.V. Act’ for short) stating that on 13.07.2003, while he was travelling in a car bearing registration No.CNS 5379 from Shiralakoppa towards Kittur, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F-110, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction near Holabikond Bus Stand and dashed against the car. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained - 3 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 grievous injuries including fracture of the right shoulder, fracture of the scapula and dislocation of the right shoulder. He was initially treated at the Government Hospital, Hirekerur, and thereafter, as an inpatient at Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, and subsequently at Santhosh Hospital, Bengaluru. It was contended that the claimant incurred substantial medical expenses and suffered permanent disability, which affected his earning capacity and enjoyment of life. On these grounds, compensation of ₹20,00,000/- with interest was claimed. 4. The respondent–Corporation filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car and not due to the driver of the bus. 5. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, framed issues for consideration. The claimant examined himself as PW–1 and the doctor as PW–2 and produced documents marked as Exs.P1 to P25. After considering the evidence on - 4 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of ₹4,37,238/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding a total compensation of ₹4,37,238/- is exorbitant, disproportionate, and not supported by the evidence on record. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by the respondent herein/claimant were fracture of the right shoulder, scapula, and dislocation of the right shoulder, and that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation without properly appreciating the nature of injuries, treatment, and actual impact on earning capacity. 7. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car, and the respondent failed to examine - 5 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 any independent eyewitnesses to establish negligence on the part of the bus driver. Despite this, the Tribunal has wrongly fastened liability on the appellant. 8. The learned counsel also submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads such as pain and suffering, medical expenses, food and nourishment, attendant charges, taxi charges, loss of happiness and discomfort, and loss of income is on the higher side and not commensurate with the injuries suffered. It is therefore urged that the impugned award is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law and calls for interference by this Court by suitably modifying or setting aside the award. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable, based on the evidence on record, and does not call for interference. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. - 6 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 11. On re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal on negligence. The police records and oral evidence of the claimant clearly establish the negligence on the part of the bus driver. Hence, the finding on negligence is affirmed. 12. However, insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the accident is of the year 2003. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income has to be taken at ₹3,250/- per month. The Tribunal has taken a higher income while calculating loss of future income, which requires modification. 13. The claimant sustained fracture of the right shoulder, fracture of the scapula and dislocation of the right shoulder. Considering the nature of injuries and the evidence of PW–2, the functional disability affecting the earning capacity of the claimant is reasonably assessed at 20% to the whole body. The age of the claimant being 32 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16. - 7 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 Accordingly, the loss of future income is recalculated as under: Monthly income : ₹3,250/- Annual income : ₹3,250 × 12 = ₹39,000/- Disability : 20% Multiplier : 16 Loss of future income : ₹39,000 × 10% × 15 = ₹1,24,800/- 14. In respect of the compensation awarded under the other heads, no interference is called for and the same is retained. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed as follows: Sl. No. Head of Compensation Awarded by Tribunal (₹) Reassessed by this Court (₹) 1 Pain and sufferings 50,000 50,000 2 Medical expenses 1,70,238 1,70,238 3 Food and nourishment 5,000 5,000 4 Attendant charges 5,000 5,000 5 Taxi charges 5,000 5,000 6 Loss of unhappiness and discomfort 10,000 10,000 7 Loss of future income 1,92,000 1,24,800 Total 4,37,238 3,70,038 - 8 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of ₹3,70,038/- as against ₹4,37,238/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur, in M.V.C. No.115/2006, is modified. (iii) The claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of ₹3,70,038/- as against ₹4,37,238/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iv) The compensation amount shall be satisfied by the appellant – Corporation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 9 - MFA No.25488 of 2012 (v) The amount, if any, deposited in excess shall be refunded to the appellant– Corporation. (vi) Parties shall bear their own costs. (vii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE RSH / CT:VP