Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Kumar Abhishek S/O Suaraj Kulakarni on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
MFA No. 100277 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100277 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
M.S.R.T.C. KOLHAPUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
MSRTC SANGLI DIVISION,
NEAR MSRTC BUS STAND, SANGLI-416416.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASR NAMAZI, ADVOCATE (VC)
AND:
KUMAR ABHISHEK S/O SURAJ KULAKARNI,
OCC: STUDENT , SINCE MINOR, AGE: 17 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY SURAJ
S/O CHANDRAKANT KULAKARNI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: VEGETABLE VENDOR,
R/O: MUCHCHANDI, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENT
(SOLE RESPONDENT "INSUFFICIENT" ADDRESS)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.07 05:45:04
+0100 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2237/2017 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.4,54,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
MFA No. 100277 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Matter is listed for fourth time for further orders for steps to unserved respondent.
2. Sri ASR Namazi, learned counsel for appellant-MSRTC appearing through videoconferencing, submits that despite efforts appellant is unable to ensure service of notice on respondent, prompting this Court to hear matter for admission.
3. It was submitted appeal was by MSRTC owner of Bus questioning award on quantum as well as finding regarding contributory negligence. As per claimant at 06.30 p.m. on 13.06.2016, when claimant was a pillion rider on motorcycle no.MH-10/BU-4750, near Tanang Cross of Meeraj-Pandarpur Road, driver of MSRTC Bus No.MH-14/BT-3424, drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at Government Hospital and Dr.Kumbar Hospital, Miraj, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Claiming compensation, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against MSRTC-owner of Bus.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944 MFA No. 100277 of 2020 HC-KAR
4. On service of notice, claim petition was opposed on ground of contributory negligence as well as on quantum. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.SD Patil, as PW1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. MSRTC examined its driver as RW1 and did not lead any documentary evidence.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to sole negligence of driver of Bus, assessed compensation of ₹4,54,800/- and held MSRTC liable to pay said compensation. Aggrieved, present appeal was filed assailing same.
6. It was submitted that at time of accident, there were two pillion riders on motorcycle, indicating that rider of motorcycle was negligent. Further, there was no justification for assessment of disability at 13%. Besides award of ₹60,000/- towards pain and suffering, comforts, etc., and ₹94,800/- towards medical expenses was unjustified and sought enhancement. Even award of interest at 9% per annum was excessive and sought modification.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944 MFA No. 100277 of 2020 HC-KAR
8. From above, it is seen that this appeal is by MSRTC challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence as well as assailing award on quantum. In view of above, points that would arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether finding of Tribunal on negligence is calls for interference?
(ii) Whether assessment of compensation calls for interference?
9. Point no.(i): Though, challenge on negligence is based entirely on contention that at time of accident there were three persons on motorcycle with carrying capacity of 'two', it is settled law that carrying excess passengers would be a violation attracting fine and cannot by itself be basis for contributory negligence. While passing impugned award, Tribunal noted that Police after investigation had filed charge sheet only against driver of Bus. Apart from above, on perusal of Ex.P4-spot panchanama, Tribunal noted reference to existence of brake marks running extending to 45 feet. Based on above material, Tribunal arrived at its finding on negligence.
10. There is no challenge on ground that observation is without any basis or contrary to material on record. Since finding -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944 MFA No. 100277 of 2020 HC-KAR is based on some material, there will be no scope for interference with same. Even on quantum, there is no dispute that injured claimant in instant case was a minor. Tribunal assessed compensation as per method evolved in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Limited & Anr, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396. There is no dispute that PW2 assessed limb disability at 40%. Tribunal has moderated same to 13% as functional disability. Same cannot be stated to be either grossly excessive or without any basis. Hence, award of ₹3,00,000/- would be justified. Insofar as award of ₹60,000/- towards pain and suffering, etc., though, learned counsel would be justified that same would be contrary to decision in Master Mallikarjun's case. Normally, apart from lump sum compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity as well as amenities, claimant would be entitled for compensation towards medical expenses and loss of earning of parents during treatment and recuperation and money spent towards conveyance etc. Tribunal has examined medical reports and bills while awarding ₹94,800/- towards medical expenses. Accident in question occurred in the year 2016. Notional income during said year is ₹8,750/-. Even if, period of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944 MFA No. 100277 of 2020 HC-KAR four months is considered as loss of income during laid up period, same would come to ₹35,000/-. Some amount would require to be awarded towards conveyance also. On overall consideration, award of ₹60,000/- can be adjusted towards loss of income during laid up period and towards conveyance and other incidental expenses. Consequently, there would be no scope for interference. Though, award of interest of 9% per annum is challenged, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been consistently awarding 9% interest per annum. Therefore, even said contention cannot be sustained. Points for consideration are answered in negative. Consequently, appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for payment.
Balance amount to be deposited within 6 weeks. On deposit, Tribunal to disburse same to claimant as per award.
In view of dismissal of appeal, IA nos.1 and 2 of 2020 are dismissed as unnecessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CKK, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2