Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs S. Dattatreyya Dane on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
MFA No. 104422 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104422 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
MSRTC, KOLHAPUR DIVISION, KOLHAPUR-416012.
REPRESENTING AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI. ROHAN BHARMUDAS PALANGE,
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KOLHAPUR DIVISION.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASR NAMAZI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
S DATTATREYYA DANE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YAMAGE, TQ: KAGAL-416216,
DIST: KOLHAPUR.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.11 09:47:09
+0000
AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.2330/2014 BY SR. CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NIPPANI ON 20.12.2018 AND ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
MFA No. 104422 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.12.2018 passed in MVC no.2330/2014 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani1, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri ASR Namazi, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by respondent - MSRTC in claim petition filed by respondent herein. It was submitted, as per claimant when he was riding motorcycle no.MH-09/BR-7265 at 2:00 p.m. on 18.03.2014 on NH-4, driver of bus no.MH-14/BT-3099 owned by MSRTC drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. It was stated that in accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries despite taking treatment at Government Hospital, Nippani and Vasundhara Nursing Home, Kolhapur, sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition against MSRTC under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. On appearance, MSRTC opposed claim petition, filed objections opposing claim petition on all grounds including 1 For short, 'Tribunal' -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813 MFA No. 104422 of 2019 HC-KAR denying negligence of bus driver and alleging total negligence on part of claimant.
4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW1 and Dr.Mohan P. Kalekar as PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent did not lead any evidence.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver and claimant was entitled for compensation from MSRTC as follows:
Sl.No. Component/Head Amount 1 Pain and suffering Rs.12,000/-2
Medical expenses, future medical Rs.1,91,643/- expenses, attendants, conveyance and other expenses 3 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.18,000/- 4
Loss of future income Rs.1,08,000/-
5
Loss of amenities and life comforts Rs.15,000/-
Total amount Rs.3,44,643/-
6. Challenging same, appeal was filed. It was firstly submitted, Tribunal erred in its finding on negligence when -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813 MFA No. 104422 of 2019 HC-KAR accident was caused by motorcycle rider. Same was without proper consideration. It erred in not noticing that motorcycle rider did not have driving licence.
7. Even on quantum, impugned award calls for reduction. Tribunal failed to note that disability was assessed by a doctor who had not treated claimant and even assessment of disability was excessive. It was further submitted, compensation awarded under various heads was excessive and called for reduction. Even rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum was excessive and prayed for allowing appeal on above grounds.
8. Respondent served and unrepresented. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and certified copies of pleadings, deposition and exhibits furnished by counsel for appellant.
9. Since, this is an appeal by MSRTC challenging finding on negligence as well as on quantum, points that would arise for consideration are:
1) Whether finding of Tribunal fixing entire negligence on MSRTC Driver is justified? -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813 MFA No. 104422 of 2019 HC-KAR
2) Whether award of compensation calls for reduction as prayed?
10. Point no.1: At outset, it is seen there is no dispute about occurrence of accident involving MSRTC bus and motorcycle on which claimant was riding. While passing impugned judgment, Tribunal noted reliance of prosecution records by claimant to establish actionable negligence against bus driver. It noted Exs.P1 to P3, FIR, complaint and spot panchanama disclosed that accident had occurred due to fault of bus driver and MSRTC did not lead contra evidence. It also noted nothing worthwhile was elicited during cross-examination of PW1 to discredit claimant's version about manner of occurrence of accident. Thus, it is seen finding of Tribunal is based on reference to material on record and by assigning reasons. No case of perversity is made out. Hence, Point no.1 is answered in affirmative.
11. Point no.2: On quantum, it is seen as on date of accident, claimant was stated to be 40 years of age earning Rs.40,000/- per annum as agricultural coolie. Even though there was no specific evidence, considering daily income of Rs.200/- -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813 MFA No. 104422 of 2019 HC-KAR Tribunal considered Rs.6,000/- as monthly income. When notional income adopted by this Court for year 2014 is Rs.7,500/-, said assessment would not call for interference.
12. Further, Ex.P5 - injury certificate, Ex.P6 - discharge summary and Ex.P11 - disability certificate would indicate, claimant sustained compound fracture of nasal bone as well as crush injury on right foot with compound fracture of right ankle, assessed by PW2 to cause permanent disability of 45% to right ankle. Same is taken by Tribunal as 10% loss of earning capacity, which in fact appears more conservative than excessive. Hence, no interference.
13. When claimant sustained multiple fractures, even compensation awarded at Rs.12,000/- towards pain and suffering cannot be stated to be excessive or without basis. Likewise, award of Rs.1,91,643/- against medical bills, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period taking period of three months as layoff, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities also cannot be stated to be excessive or without basis, leaving no scope for interference.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813 MFA No. 104422 of 2019 HC-KAR
14. Hence, without much ado, Point no.2 is answered in negative. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for disbursal. All pending applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29