Karnataka High Court
Rajaram S/O Shamarao Patil vs The Divisional Controller on 29 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
MFA No. 200554 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200554 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAJARAM S/O SHAMARAO PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE &
WATCHMAN, R/O TIKOTA,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHWETA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
MSRTC, SOLAPUR-413 001,
STATE MAHARASHTRA.
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
...RESPONDENT
2025.02.01
15:40:15 -
0800
(BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2019 PASSED BY THE
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-IV AT VIJAYPAUR,
IN MVC NO.1656/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
MFA No. 200554 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award in MVC No.1656/2016 passed by learned
Member, MACT-IV, Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal' for short), dated 23.09.2019.
2. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,410/- as compensation and
directed the respondent-Corporation to deposit the same.
3. It is a case of the petitioner that in the road
traffic accident dated 25.03.2016, while he was traveling
on bicycle, the State Transport Bus owned and managed
by the respondent dashed him, due to which he sustained
injuries and due to such injuries, he has suffered and as
such, he is entitled for the compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
4. The petition was resisted by the respondent,
contending that there was no such accident and the
compensation claimed is highly exorbitant.
5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and
after appreciating the evidence which is in the form of a
deposition of PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P13, preceded to grant a
compensation of Rs.1,71,410/- under the following heads:
Medical expenses Rs.1,14,408/-
Attendant charges Rs. 16,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of earning during treatment Rs. 6,000/-
period
Total Rs.1,71,408/-
Rounded off to Rs.1,71,410/-
6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking
enhancement contending that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, attendant
charges, loss of amenities in life and loss of earning during
treatment period are on the lower side.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that the nature of the injuries
suffered by the petitioner are simple in nature and there is
no disability, which has occurred and as such, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and
correct.
10. The records would reveal that the petitioner had
sustained the following injuries:
1) Cut lacerated wound right temporal 3 x 2 cms
active bleeding.
2) Cut lacerated wound on cheek 5 x 1 cms.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
3) Cut lacerated wound on nostril 1 x 1 cms.
4) Contusion Sternum 5 x 5
5) CT Scan skull, subarachnoid hemorrhage.
11. It is evident that the petitioner has not led any
evidence to show that there was any disability to him.
Moreover, except injury No.5 mentioned above, all other
injuries are simple in nature. Therefore no fault can be
found with the Tribunal in not awarding any compensation
under the head of loss of future income.
12. The compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering appears
to be on the lower side and the same is enhanced to
Rs.25,000/-.
13. The compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal under the head of loss of amenities in life also
appears to be on the lower side and the same is enhanced
to Rs.40,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
14. It is worth to note that the petitioner had
sustained head injury and therefore, it can safely be said
that he was unable to resume his work at least for a
period of two months. Though the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.6,000/- under the head of loss of earning during
treatment period, it has considered the same for a period
of 15 days. A person with the head injury is bound to take
rest at least for a period of two months. Therefore, the
compensation under the head of loss of earning during
treatment period is enhanced to Rs.16,000/- by holding
that the notional income in the year 2016 was Rs.8,000/-.
15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the remaining heads does not call for any
interference by this Court.
16. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the modified
compensation under different heads as below:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
Medical expenses Rs.1,14,408/-
Attendant charges Rs. 16,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of earning during treatment Rs. 16,000/-
period
Total Rs.2,11,408/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.1,71,410/-
Enhancement Rs.39,998/-
Rounded off to Rs.40,000/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest and therefore,
the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a
sum of Rs.40,000/- in addition to what has
been awarded by the Tribunal together with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:635
(iii) The respondent - Corporation is directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount
within a period of six weeks from the date of
this order.
(iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
remains unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG
