Karnataka High Court
Rama S/O Babu @ Balu Magadum vs The General Manager on 2 April, 2026
-1-
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102027 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
RAMA S/O BABU @ BALU MAGADUM
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND
AGRICULTURE
R/O. MANAGUTTI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE GENERAL MANAGER
Digitally signed
by
YASHAVANT
MSRTC,
NARAYANKAR
YASHAVANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
VAHATUK BHUVAN BOMBAY,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.04.02
12:17:28
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
+0530
M.S.R.T.C, KOLHAPUR,
TQ. AND DIST.: KOLHAPUR,
STATE MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2014 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-V, BELGAUM, IN MVC NO.4/2011 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AND PASS
SUCH OTHER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
16.03.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI) The Claimant in MVC No.4/2011 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") has maintained this appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
2. The claimant instituted MVC No.4/2011 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent for injuries sustained in a road accident. According to the claimant, on 14.09.2010 at around 5:30 p.m., while traveling as a passenger in the respondent's bus bearing registration No. MH- 12-CH-7859, near Jaladal Village within Nesari Police Station limits, the bus overturned, resulting in his injuries.
3. Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel, filed objections, and contested the claim. The Tribunal, after evaluating the merits, partly allowed the petition. It held that the claimant proved the accident due to the bus driver's negligence and the resultant injuries. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,14,920/- in compensation, plus interest at 8% per annum from the date of -3- MFA No.102027 OF 2014 the petition until realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri Y. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Counsel for Claimant and Sri C.V. Angadi, learned Counsel for Respondent.
5. The sole issue for consideration is whether the Tribunal awarded just and adequate compensation to the claimant.
6. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,14,920/- to the claimant under the following heads:
Sl.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)
1. Future loss of income due to disability 52,920.00
2. Loss of income during laid up period 10,000.00
3. Pain and sufferings 20,000.00
4. Medical expenses 2,000.00
5. Food and nourishment 10,000.00
6. Conveyance and other sundry 10,000.00
expenses
Total : 1,14,920.00
7. Learned Counsel for the Claimant vehemently
contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting Rs.150/- per day as the claimant's income, instead of the notional income prescribed in the chart of Karnataka State Legal Services -4- MFA No.102027 OF 2014 Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the cases before the Lok Adalat settlement.
8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Tribunal correctly took the income of the claimant as Rs.150/- per day, as averred in the claim petition. A perusal of the record reveals that both the claim petition and the claimant's chief-examination affidavit categorically state he was earning Rs.150/- per day from coolie and agricultural work. The Tribunal thus rightly adopted this figure, warranting rejection of the claimant's contention.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing whole-body disability at 7%, contrary to PW-3 Dr. Satish's opinion of 20% permanent physical disability to the right upper limb. PW-3 indeed opined, based on clinical and radiological findings that the claimant suffered 20% permanent disability to the right upper limb. However, PW-3 did not specify the equivalent whole-body or functional disability arising from the accident injuries. The record discloses the claimant having suffered only an un- displaced fracture of the right distal radius. In these circumstances, the Tribunal committed no error in assessing 7% permanent functional disability to the whole body, as limb -5- MFA No.102027 OF 2014 specific percentages cannot be mechanically equated to whole body loss without evidence of earning impact.
10. The claimant was aged between 41-45 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal correctly applied the '14' multiplier as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), appropriate for this age bracket. Thus, based on its above referred reasoning, the Tribunal worked out loss of future income as Rs.52,920/- (i.e., Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 14 x 7%). In the absence of any contrary material, this computation warrants retention.
11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- each towards food and nourishment as well as conveyance and sundry expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Taking into consideration nature of injury suffered by the claimant, probable period of his treatment and the materials placed on record in support of the contention, this Court holds the claimant has failed to establish any valid ground for enhancement, as the compensation awarded under -6- MFA No.102027 OF 2014 these heads are just and adequate. The point for determination is accordingly answered in the negative.
12. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 19.03.2014 passed in MVC No.4/2011 by learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi is confirmed.
iii. Draw an award accordingly.
iv. The registry is directed to send back record to
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
RKM, YAN
CT: CMU