- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3178 OF 2024 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5501 OF 2022 IN MFA No. 3178/2024 BETWEEN: SRI VARUN KUMAR K. T. S/O. THIMMAPPAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1-35, BAYALANGADI VILLAGE, NENA POST,BELTHANGADI TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 228. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B M T C THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GOVT. OWNED ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHANTHINAGAR, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.05.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5262/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC., IN MFA NO. 5501/2022 BETWEEN: 1. B.M.T.C. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, (KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GOVT OWNED ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION) SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ...APPELLANT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 (BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VARUNKUMAR K.T S/O THIMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.1-135, BAYALANGADI VILLAGE NENA POST,BELTANGADI TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA-574214. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.05.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.5262/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU SCCH-15, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,33,107/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE COURT AND ETC., THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 2. MFA.No.3178/2024 is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 07.05.2022 passed in MVC No.5262/2018 on the file of the IX & C/c XIII ASCJ & ACMM, Court of Small Causes and Member-MACT, Bengaluru. 3. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 19.08.2018 and filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.3,33,107/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of compensation amount in the Court. Aggrieved by the said order, claimant filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 MFA.No.3178/2024 for enhancement of compensation and mainly contended that the amounts being granted under conventional heads is meager. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries and thus requested for the enhancement of compensation. 4. MFA.No.5501/2022 is filed by the B.M.T.C, The Managing Director (Karnataka State Transport Corporation, Govt owned Road Transport Corporation). Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident caused only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus by relying on the oral evidence of the claimant and on the ground that he was charge sheeted by the police. As per the spot mahazar and sketch, both the bus and motorcycle were moving in the same direction i.e., from West to East direction, the bus was halted in the Nayandahalli Metro Station bus stop and was slowly proceeding further and at that time the claimant who was riding the motorcycle came from behind and dashed the front right side near - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 driver's door of the bus. The width of the road is 42 feet, the place of accident is at a distance of 18 feet from the Northern edge of the tar road and claimant was having 24 feet wide road on his right side to proceed further, which clearly shows that the accident is occurred only due to his entire negligence and moreover, the claimant was riding a motorcycle with other two pillion riders namely Gangadhar and Neelu. It was triple riding, as such, he was not in a comfortable position to drive and control the vehicle and due to the high speed and imbalance, dashed the front right side near the driver’s door of the bus. But the Tribunal erred by fixing the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. There is no negligence on the driver and the bus was moving slowly from the bus stop after boarding of the passengers. Though petitioner examined the Doctor- PW.3, who has not verified the previous medical documents, therefore the Tribunal rightly considered disability as 10% though Doctor assessed the same as 47% to the limb and 15.66% to the whole body. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 In Ex.P12, the OPD case sheet, it was shown that the fracture is united. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal considered the income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month without any basis and the amounts granted under other heads are excessive and thus requested for modification of the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-KSRTC contended that petitioner was riding a motorcycle with other two pillion riders and it is a triple riding and as such he lost control of the vehicle and he contributed for the accident. Further, learned counsel contented that it is a case of triple riding and is entitled only for penalty as provided under the M.V.Act and on that ground it cannot be stated that he contributed for the accident. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-KSRTC clearly stated the manner of accident as depicted in the spot mahazar, it was stated that both vehicles were going - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 in the same direction and the bus was started from the bus stop in slow banner and at that time, the rider of the motorcycle came from behind the bus and dashed right side door of the driver and width of the road was 42 feet and there was 18 feet distance from North edge of the tar road and still he was having 24 feet wide road on the right side. This clearly shows that accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of rider of the motorcycle and this Court finds it reasonable to fix his contributory negligence as 20% and that of the driver of the bus as 80%. 7. It is stated that petitioner/claimant was aged 31 years as on the date of accident and was working as Service Engineer at Alfa Power Solutions and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2018, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.12,500/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As on the date of accident, he was aged 31 years and the multiplier is '16'. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 8. It is contended that due to accident, the petitioner has sustained lacerated wound measuring 2 X 1 cms over left side of forehead and abrasion over left knee region and X-ray of knee with femur shows fracture of left femur and under went surgery of CRIF with IMIL nailing of femur, which are grievous in nature and he also examined Doctor as PW.3. The X-ray shows left femur fracture united with implants in situ and doctor assessed the disability of whole body as 15.66%. The Tribunal considered that PW.3 is not a treated Doctor and the fracture is united and accordingly taken the disability as 10%. Considering the medical evidence and the nature of injury, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability as 12% instead of 10%. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.2,88,000/- (12500x12x12x16%). The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,878/- towards medical expenses as per Exs.P6 and P7 and it is confirmed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 9. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other factors, this Court finds it reasonable to confirm the amount already granted by the Tribunal for 'pain and sufferings' as Rs.50,000/- and finds it reasonable to grant Rs.30,000/- for 'loss of amenities' and Rs.37,500/- for 'loss of income during laid up period' as he might not have attended any other work atleast for a period of 3 months (12500x3=37500). The Tribunal already granted Rs.20,000/- for Future Medical Expenses and it is confirmed and Rs.25,000/- is granted by the Tribunal for attendant charges and this Court finds it reasonable to modify the transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges to Rs.15,229/- instead of Rs.25,000/-. Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below: Sl. Nos. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Towards pain and sufferings 50,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses 10,878/- 3. Towards loss of amenities 30,000/- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 4. Loss of future earning capacity 2,88,000/- 5. Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 15,229/- 6. Towards loss of income during laid up period 37,500/- 7. Towards future medical expenses 20,000/- Total 4,51,607/- 10. The total compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,33,107/- to Rs.4,51,607/- and it is stated that the respondent-KSRTC has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent-KSRTC is directed to deposit Rs.1,18,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same. 11. The amount in deposit to be transferred to MACT. The respondent-KSRTC is directed to deposit 80% of Rs.4,51,607/-, within one month from date of this order. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8954 MFA No. 3178 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 5501 of 2022 12. The petitioner-claimant is not entitled for interest for delay period of 627 days as per the order in I.A.No.1/2024 in MFA.No.3178/2024 dated 01.09.2025. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SMJ; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54