Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Erappa vs P. Chinnabasavaiah S/O Late ... on 2 April, 2026
-1-
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
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.103689 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O ERAPPA
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER AT S.V.V.M.,
PRIVATE SCHOOL,
HOLAKOTE VILLAGE IN SIRUGUPPA,
TALUK OF BALLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location:
AND:
HIGH COURT
YASHAVANT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.04.02
12:17:45
+0530
1. P. CHINNABASAVAIAH S/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH,
AGE:43 YEARS,
DRIVER OF THE KSRTC
BUS BEARING REGN.NO.KA-36/F-930,
KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
OWNER OF THE KSRTC
BUS BEARING REGN.NO.KA-36/F-930,
KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:08.10.2015,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.574/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - XII, AT BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
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. 103689 OF 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI) The claimant in MVC No.574/2014 on the file of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- XII at Ballari (in short, 'the Tribunal') has maintained this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. The claimant instituted the petition in MVC No. 574/2014 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.03.2014, caused by actionable negligence attributable to the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-36-F-930. The case of the claimant is that on 26.03.2014 he and his aunt were proceeding in a motorcycle bearing No.KA-34-EF-3429 from Thimmalapura Village towards Ballari. At about 12.00 noon, when they were near Agricultural Check Post in D.Hirehal Village, the bus in question came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motorcycle, as a result he sustained grievous injuries.
3. On service of the notice, both the driver of the bus and the owner/ the Division Controller of NEKRTC, Koppal -3- MFA No. 103689 OF 2015 Division (in short, 'the Corporation') appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel and the petition was contested by the Corporation by filing the written statement. Afterwards, the Tribunal framed the issues, held enquiry in the matter and then disposed of the claim petition on merits of the case.
4. The Tribunal, on a careful consideration of the materials available on record, held that the claimant met with an accident on 26.03.2014 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus in question, and sustained injuries in the said incident. The Tribunal appreciated the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- to the claimant by way of compensation, and accordingly allowed the claim petition in part. The respondents have not challenged the impugned award. However, the claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, directed this appeal against the impugned award praying to award just and reasonable compensation.
5. Sri Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned Counsel for Claimant vehemently submitted that the claimant was working as a teacher in a private school and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month at the relevant point of time but the Tribunal erroneously took his income as Rs.5,000/- per month. -4-
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015 He further submitted that though PW-2, the doctor who examined the claimant, assessed the disability in the claimant at 20%, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability to 10%. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of income during laid up period and loss of amenities is on lower side and as such, prayed to modify the impugned award and to award just and reasonable compensation as sought in the claim petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and that the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the said amount based on facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record. He contended that the claimant has not made out any valid reason to modify the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Based on the arguments advanced before this Court and the materials on record, the sole issue arising for consideration is whether the claimant has established valid grounds for enhancement of the compensation. -5-
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- to the claimant under the following heads:
Sl.No. Heads Amount (in ₹)
1. Pain and suffering 30,000.00
2. Medical expenses and attendant 30,000.00
charges
3. Loss of future earning capacity or 1,08,000.00
disability
4. Loss of amenities of life. 10,000.00
Total 1,78,000.00
9. In his evidence, the claimant has claimed fractures to the right femur, right knee joint, right middle finger, right thigh along with bleeding injuries across the body from the accident in question. However, the record - particularly the wound certificate (Ex.P3) and discharge summary (Ex.P4), establishes only one grievous injury namely a fracture of the middle 1/3rd of the right femur alongside two simple injuries. Even PW-2, Dr. K.V.P. Rao, testified solely to the fracture at the shaft of the right femur. The Tribunal, duly considering the nature of these injuries and the claimant's six-day in-patient treatment from 26.03.2014 to 01.04.2014, awarded Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. In the facts -6- MFA No. 103689 OF 2015 and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the award constitutes just and adequate compensation under this head.
10. The claimant has produced medical bills and prescriptions (Ex.P7 and P8) evidencing total expenditure of Rs.17,180/- on in-patient treatment, subsequent care, hospital charges, medicines, diagnostic tests, and implant removal. The Tribunal, accounting for these documented costs alongside probable incidental expenses, awarded Rs.30,000/- under the head of medical expenses and attendant charges. This Court finds no valid grounds to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- to the claimant under the head of loss of future income on account of disability. It arrived at the said figure by taking income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month, multiplier as '18' and percentage of permanent disability as 10%. The claimant has contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income as Rs.10,000/- and disability as 20%.
12. According to the claimant, he was aged 25 years and earning monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a teacher in private school, as on the date of -7- MFA No. 103689 OF 2015 accident. However, he did not produce any document before the Tribunal to support any of these contentions. In spite of the same, the Tribunal based on the age of the claimant mentioned in the wound certificate, considered him as aged 24 years at the time of accident and assumed his income notionally as Rs.5,000/- per month.
13. On the other hand, the Corporation has adduced evidence before the Tribunal to rebut the above contentions of the claimant. RW-1 - Sri Maruti Y. Pujar, who was working as the Divisional Security Inspector in the Corporation, stated that as per the instructions of his higher ups, he visited Sri Veerabhadreshwara Vidya Mandir, Higher Primary School, No.64, Halekote Village, Sirguppa Taluk on 06.08.2014, met the Headmaster of the said school and secured relevant information as per Ex.R1. As per the contents of said document, the claimant was born on 01.06.1989 and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. The cross-examination of RW-1 reveals that the claimant has not disputed the statements made by RW-1 on oath. It is relevant to note that though the claimant contended that he was working as a teacher in S.V.V.M. School, Halekote and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, he did not choose to adduce positive -8- MFA No. 103689 OF 2015 evidence before the Tribunal to support his contention. Even then, the Tribunal has taken notional income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month, which is more than his actual income at the relevant point of time.
14. It is true that PW-2, Dr. K.V.P. Rao, opined in his evidence that the claimant suffered 20% partial permanent disability, citing muscle wasting in the right thigh, restricted movement and flexion in the right knee joint, and difficulties in walking on slopes, squatting, or climbing stairs. Even accepting PW-2's testimony in toto, there is no basis to presume any loss of future earning capacity from these injuries, as the alleged disabilities bear no direct impact on the claimant's earning potential as a teacher. Moreover, PW-2 did not specifically attribute any permanent physical disability or loss of future earning capacity to the accident injuries. Nevertheless, the Tribunal adopted a 10% disability percentage and computed loss of future income at Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 10%). As the Corporation has not challenged the impugned award, there is no scope for modifying or reducing the compensation under this head. At any rate, the claimant has furnished no valid grounds for seeking enhancement thereof. -9-
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that it is a just compensation. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the claimant has not made out any valid grounds to modify the impugned award and enhance the compensation as prayed in this appeal. Hence, the point for consideration is answered in the negative.
16. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE RKM,YAN CT: CMU