Karnataka High Court
Appalal vs The Divisional Controller on 21 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
MFA No. 202053 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202053 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
APPALAL S/O SHANKAR RATHOD,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: WARD NO.29, BEGUM TALAB TANDA,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.01.22
09:07:05 -
0800
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KSRTC,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
MFA No. 202053 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN MVC.NO.1034/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XII AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1034/2016 BY THE III ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XII AT VIJAYAPUR AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.1,90,000/- WITH 9% INTEREST TO
RS.11,50,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and
award in MVC.No.1034/2016 passed by the learned III
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XII, at Vijayapura
dated 09.03.2018 has approached this Court in appeal
seeking enhancement of the compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
02. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the respondent.
03. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner while traveling on his motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-28-V-7092 was hit by a KSRTC bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-18-F-785 coming from the opposite direction
and as a result he fell down and sustained fracture of neck
of the humorous and took a treatment for the same. The
petitioner contended that he was a businessman running a
Mobile Shop and he has suffered permanent disability and
therefore he is entitled for adequate compensation.
04. The petition was opposed by the respondent -
KSRTC on the ground that the accident was due to the
negligence of the petitioner. The compensation claimed is
highly exorbitant and imaginary.
05. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and
evidence was led before it. The petitioner was examined
as PW.1 and the Doctor who assisted the disability was
examined as PW.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
The driver of the respondent - bus was examined as RW.1
and Ex.R.1 was marked. After hearing both sides the
Tribunal has awarded the compensation under different
heads as below:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
Awarded
No.
1. Injury, pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.12,500/-
Loss of income due to
3. Rs.1,14,240/-
permanent physical disability
4. Loss of income during laid up Rs.8,000/-
period
5. Food and nourishment Rs.5,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
7. Conveyance charges Rs.5,000/-
Loss of amenities and future
8. Rs.20,000/-
unhappiness.
Total Rs.1,89,740/-
Rounded to Rs.1,90,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
06. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the Tribunal has assessed the disability is
on the lower side. The notional income of the petitioner is
also on the lower side. It has not considered the nexus
between the physical disability and the functional
disability. It is submitted that the compensation under the
head of loss of amenities in life is also on lower side.
Therefore, there is a need for indulgence by this Court.
07. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - owner of the bus submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and
correct, there is no need for enhancement of
compensation; as such, he defends the impugned
judgment and the award.
08. The perusal of the records would reveal that the
petitioner was aged about 29 years and he was running a
Mobile Shop business. The petitioner did not produce any
documentary evidence to show his income. Therefore, the
notional income has to be considered. The guidelines
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
issued by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before Lok-
Adalath prescribed a notional income of Rs.8,750/- per
month for the year 2016. In umpteen number of
judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued
by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages
fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are
acceptable. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is
considered at Rs.8,750/-.
09. Insofar, as the disability is concerned the PW.2
- Doctor has stated that there is a disability to the extent
of 25% to 30% to the limb on account of the fracture of
neck of humorous. It is pertinent to note that the
petitioner is working in a Mobile Shop, requiring use of his
hands extensively. Therefore, the functional disability of
the petitioner cannot be at any rate less then 1/3rd of the
disability of the limb. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the disability is 12%. Hence, the compensation
under the head of loss of future income is calculated as
Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 12% x 17 = Rs.2,14,200/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
10. Consequently, the compensation under the
head of loss of income during laid up period has to be
enhanced to Rs.17,500/-, treating such laid up period as
02 months.
11. The compensation under the head of pain and
suffering also need to be enhanced. It is assessed at
Rs.30,000/-.
12. Similarly, the compensation under the head of
loss of amenities is also enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
13. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable
compensation amount towards medical expenses, food
and nourishment, attendant charges and
conveyance charges. The same need not be disturbed.
14. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,24,200/- under the
following heads :-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded
by this Court
No.
1. Loss of future income Rs.2,14,200/-
2. Loss of income during Rs.17,500/-
treatment period
3. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
4. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs.12,500/-
6. Food and Rs.5,000/-
nourishment
7. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
8. Conveyance charges Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.3,14,200/-
Less: awarded by Rs.1,90,000/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.1,24,200/-
15. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:342
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
II. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,24,200/-
in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date
of petition till the date of deposits.
III. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding
deposit etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT: AK
