Karnataka High Court
Ganesh S/O Shankrappa Kumachagi vs K.M. Altaf Hussain on 6 June, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
MFA No. 101342 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101341 of 2017
MFA No. 101568 of 2017
HC-KAR MFA No. 101569 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101342 OF 2017 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101341 OF 2017
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101568 OF 2017
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101569 OF 2017
IN MFA NO. 101342 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O KARABASAPPA SAJJAN SHETTAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS,
R/O: CHIKKAMSHI-HOSUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. K.M. ALTAF HUSSAIN
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA S/O AKMAL PASHA,
KALMATH
Location: HIGH COURT OF AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
KARNATAKA DHARWAD R/O: K.R. PURAM EXTN. SHIVAMOGGA,
BENCH
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA,
(OWNER OF PRIVATE BUS
NO.KA-14/A-1313).
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, N.K. COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
(POLICY NO.2404003112P303300260)
(VALID FROM 21/03/2013 TO 20/03/2014).
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
MFA No. 101342 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101341 of 2017
MFA No. 101568 of 2017
HC-KAR MFA No. 101569 of 2017
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 24.01.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.173/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TIRBUNAL, HAVERI.
IN MFA NO. 101341 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. GANESH S/O SHANKRAPPA KUMACHAGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS,
R/O: MUDUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. K.M. ALTAF HUSSAIN
S/O AKMAL PASHA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: K.R. PURAM EXTN. SHIVAMOGGA,
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA,
(OWNER OF PRIVATE BUS
NO.KA-14/A-1313).
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, N.K. COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
(POLICY NO.2404003112P303300260)
(VALID FROM 21/03/2013 TO 20/03/2014).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 24.01.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.172/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TIRBUNAL, HAVERI.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
MFA No. 101342 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101341 of 2017
MFA No. 101568 of 2017
HC-KAR MFA No. 101569 of 2017
IN MFA NO. 101568 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
MR. K.M. ALTAF HUSSAIN
S/O AKMAL PASHA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS-OWNER
OF THE VEHICLE
R/O: H.NO.51, K.R. PURAM EXTENSION,
SHIMOGA (SHIVAMOGGA),
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA,
PIN CODE-577 201.
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
BUS NO.KA-14/A-1313)
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. GANESH
S/O SHANKRAPPA KUMACHAGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS,
R/O: MUDUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI,
PIN CODE-581 104.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
(UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.),
THROUGH DIVISIONAL OFFICE, N.K. COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
PIN CODE-580 023.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 24.01.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.172/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TIRBUNAL, HAVERI.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
MFA No. 101342 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101341 of 2017
MFA No. 101568 of 2017
HC-KAR MFA No. 101569 of 2017
IN MFA NO. 101569 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
MR. K.M. ALTAF HUSSAIN
S/O AKMAL PASHA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS-OWNER
OF THE VEHICLE
R/O: H.NO.51, K.R. PURAM EXTENSION,
SHIMOGA (SHIVAMOGGA),
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA,
PIN CODE-577 201.
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
BUS NO.KA-14/A-1313)
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O KARABASAPPA SAJJAN SHETTAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/BUSINESS,
R/O: CHIKKAMSHI-HOSUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI, PIN CODE-581 104.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
(UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.),
THROUGH DIVISIONAL OFFICE, N.K. COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, PIN CODE-580 023.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 24.01.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.173/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TIRBUNAL, HAVERI.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
MFA No. 101342 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 101341 of 2017
MFA No. 101568 of 2017
HC-KAR MFA No. 101569 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are
taken up together for final disposal.
2. MFA Nos.101342/2017 (MVC No.173/2014) and
101341/2017 (MVC No.172/2014) are filed by the
claimants/injured seeking enhancement of compensation.
Whereas MFA Nos.101568/2017 (MVC No.172/2014) and
101569/2017 (MVC No.173/2014) are filed by the owner
of bus, questioning the liability fastened on it.
3. These appeals are directed against the common
judgment and award dated 24.01.2017 passed in MVC
Nos.173/2014 and 172/2014 on the file of Principal Senior
Civil Judge and MACT, Haveri (for short, 'Tribunal').
4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are
that on 21.01.2014 around 11.45 a.m., the claimant-
Ganesh S/o Shankrappa Kumachagi (MVC No.172/2014)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/Q-
9748 along with another claimant-Basavaraj S/o
Karabasappa Sajjan (MVC No.173/2014) as a pillion rider
from Mudur to Haveri. When they came near sugar factory
of Sangur village, at that time, a private bus bearing
registration No.KA-14/A-1313, being driven by its driver,
came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the aforesaid motorcycle. Due to the which,
both the claimants, who were rider and pillion rider, fell
down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, they filed
aforesaid claim petitions seeking compensation.
5. Upon the claim petitions filed by the claimants,
the Tribunal has awarded compensation, but fastened
liability on the owner of bus, on the reason that, the bus
has travelled on the route other than the permitted route,
thereby violated permit conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal
has fastened liability on the owner of bus.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the material available on record.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
Regarding violation of conditions of policy due to
permit:
7. The appellant/owner has two buses bearing
registration Nos.KA-14/A-1313 and KA-14/A-7144.
Admittedly, both the buses have 'permit' to move on
routes specified in the permit. The bus bearing registration
No.KA-14/A-1313 was having route permit from
Shivamogga to Hangal. Whereas, the bus bearing
registration No.KA-14/A-7144 was having route permit
from Dasanakoppa to Haveri. The owner of bus has
engaged service of bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-
7144 from Dasanakoppa to Haveri, but it got repaired on
enroute of the bus. Therefore, the owner has engaged
another bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313 as a
relief vehicle from Shivamogga to Haveri. The said bus
while returning from Haveri to Shivamogga, dashed the
motorcycle of the claimants. Due to which, the claimants'
sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, upon the claim
petitions filed by the claimants, the Tribunal has awarded
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
compensation and fastened liability on the owner of bus on
the reason that the owner of bus engaged another bus
bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313 as a relief vehicle,
which was having permit from Shivamogga to Hangal only,
but was travelled beyond the Hangal, which is not
permitted as per permit. Hence, there is violation of
conditions of policy as the bus plied in the route other than
the permitted route. Thus, fastened liability on the owner
of bus.
8. The Tribunal applying Section 66 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act, 1988'), has observed
that the bus did not have permit to travel up to Haveri and
the bus had permit to travel from Shivamogga to Hangal
only. Hence, formed opinion that there is violation of
Section 66 of the Act, 1988.
9. While considering the factual scenario involved
in the case, what was the compelling circumstances to use
the bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313, is not
appreciated by the Tribunal. The said bus was used as a
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
relief vehicle, since the another bus bearing registration
No.KA-14/A-7144 had got struck and repaired on enroute
to Haveri, which was having permit. It is true that the
relief vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313,
did not have permit to travel up to Haveri, but the owner
has used this bus as a spare vehicle/relief vehicle for
carrying passengers. This inevitable circumstance is not
appreciated by the Tribunal. Admittedly, both the buses
have permit conditions and enroutes are permitted.
10. It is not a case that the bus bearing registration
No.KA-14/A-1313 did not have permit at all. Here, it is the
only deviation of route under the compelling circumstances
and the bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313 was
used as a relief vehicle. Therefore, as per Rule 57 of the
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'KMVR,
1989'), the Section 66 of the Act, 1988, is exempted.
Section 66 of the Act, 1988, stipulates regarding 'necessity
for permits'. As per Section 66(1) of the Act, 1988, no
owner of a motor vehicle shall use the vehicle or permit
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public
place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any
passengers or goods save in accordance with the
conditions of a permit granted or counter-signed by a
Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed
authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that
place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.
11. Rule 57 of the KMVR, 1989, stipulates as
follows:
"Exemption from Section 66.--The
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 66, shall
not apply to any transport vehicle used as a
relief vehicle for carrying passengers and their
luggage from a disabled stage carriage to the
place of destination."
12. Therefore, when the facts and circumstances
are considered in this case, the offending vehicle in this
case bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313, though having
permit only from Shivamogga to Hangal, but has travelled
beyond Hangal up to Haveri and while returning from
Haveri, the accident was taken place. But this vehicle was
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
used as a relief vehicle, since another bus bearing
registration No.KA-14/A-7144 was breakdown, when it
was moving on its permit enroutes. Therefore, the
offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313
was used as a relief vehicle for the circumstances above
discussed. Therefore, there is no fundamental breach
proved so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. The
Tribunal, in this regard, has committed error.
13. Further, the issue involved in the present case
is purely covered by the judgment of this Court in MFA
No.2526/2018 C/w MFA No.5720/2018, dated 22.07.2022,
between THE MANAGER OF ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., AND OTHERS Vs. MELAPPA AND
ANOTHER and the judgment of this Court in MFA
No.102693/2022, dated 21.02.2025, between THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., And Others Vs. SMT.
CHAYA SHIVAJI GHODAKE AND ANOTHER. This Court
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
in MELAPPA'S case (supra) has observed at paragraph
No.14 as follows:
"14. Therefore, it is now well settled that, if
there are two conflicting judgments of the High
Court having equal strength, then later judgment
shall prevail over the earlier. Therefore, according
to this principle, the judgment rendered in MFA
No.5960/2015 C/w MFA No.706/2013, dated
27.07.2021, between SMT.REHANNA BEGUM VS.
THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO., LTD., is latest one compared to
the case of DILIP Vs. NITIN JAIN AND OTHERS
reported in 2021 (4) KCCR 3524 (DB). Therefore,
this Court has followed the principle laid down in
SMT.REHANNA BEGUM's case (stated supra). In
the said case, it was held that mere deviation of
route does not mean to fundamental infraction so
as to absolve the Insurance Company from the
responsibility of paying the compensation and the
same is followed in the present case also for the
reasons discussed above. Therefore, in the case on
hand, it is proved that the bus bearing No.KA-18-
8172 having valid permits, but accident has
occurred other than the permitted route. The
permit route is between Hosadurga to Holalkere,
but the bus was plied from Hosadurga to Hiriyuru
and met with an accident 4 kms away from
Hosadurga. Therefore, the place of accident is
other than the permitted route. It is only the
deviation of route and this deviation cannot be
construed as fundamental infraction so as to avoid
liability of the Insurance Company from paying the
compensation. Therefore, the Insurance Company
is responsible to satisfy the claim of the claimants
as there was valid insurance policy between the
Insurance Company and the owner of the bus as it
is not disputed."
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
14. Therefore, mere deviation of rules in the
circumstances as above discussed is not amounting to
fundamental breach so as to exonerate the Insurance
Company to pay compensation to the owner. Hence, the
judgment and award insofar as fastening liability on the
owner of bus is liable to be set aside and it is set-aside
holding that the insurance company shall indemnify the
owner of the bus by paying compensation to the
claimants.
In MFA No.101342/2017 (MVC No.173/2014) -
Regarding Quantum of Compensation:
15. In the present case, the claimant-Basavaraj S/o
Karabasappa Sajjan has suffered the following injury:
"Fracture of type IV medial condyle of left tibia
close reduction with screws fixation."
16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
various heads as under:
Sl. Heads. Amount in
No. (Rs.)
1. Towards pain and suffering. 20,000/-
2. Medical expenses. 3,810/-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
3. Food, diet, nourishment & 10,000/-
attendant charges.
4. Towards loss of income during 10,000/-
laid-up period.
5. Loss of future income on 73,440/-
account of permanent physical
disability.
6. Loss of amenities and 10,000/-
enjoyment of life.
Total: 1,27,250/-
17. Hence, considering the nature of injuries
sustained, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is lesser
side. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by
modifying the judgment and award.
18. The doctor has stated that the claimant had
suffered 44% permanent physical disability to the whole
body. Therefore, considering the evidence of the doctor,
10% of functional disability is taken into consideration as
the claimant had suffered grievous injury i.e., fracture of
type IV medial condyle of left tibia close reduction with
screws fixation.
19. Considering the injuries sustained, a
compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities are awarded. The
compensation awarded towards medical expenses is as per
the actual bills and receipts produced. Hence, the same is
kept intact. Further, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses
like food, nourishment, diet, attendant charges and
conveyance charges etc., which is on higher side. Hence,
the same is reduced to Rs.8,000/-. Further, a
compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income
during laid up period for 2 months, is awarded.
20. The accident is caused in the year 2014.
Therefore, notional income of Rs.7,500/- per month is
taken into consideration, which is recognized by the
Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was
aged 28 years old at the time of accident and was working
as agriculturist. Therefore, appropriate applicable
multiplier is 17. Hence, loss of future income due to
disability is hereby reassessed as Rs.1,53,000/-
(Rs.7,500/- x 10% x 12 x 17).
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
21. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
compensation under various heads as under:
Sl. Heads. Amount in
No. (Rs.)
1. Pain and sufferings. 25,000/-
2. Loss of amenities. 20,000/-
3. Attendant, Diet, Nourishment 8,000/-
charges and Conveyance etc,.
4. Medical Expenses. 3,810/-
5. Loss of income during laid up 15,000/-
period
6. Loss of future income due to 1,53,000/-
disability.
Total: 2,24,810/-
22. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,24,810/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till
realization, as against Rs.1,27,250/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded interest on the
compensation at 7% per annum, which is scaled down to
6% per annum, since this Court is consistently awarding
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
23. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
In MFA No.101341/2017 (MVC No.172/2014) -
Regarding Quantum of Compensation:
24. In the present case, the claimant-Ganesh S/o
Shankarappa Kumachagi has suffered the following
injuries:
i. Fractured injuries to the right wrist
ii. forearm communicated fracture distal
end of both bones (ulna with radius)
radius left knee joint tibia
iii. communicated fracture of upper end
of left tibia."
25. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
various heads as under:
Sl. Heads. Amount in
No. (Rs.)
1. Towards pain and suffering. 20,000/-
2. Towards Medical expenses. 2,17,350/-
3. Towards food, diet, 10,000/-
nourishment & attendant
charges.
4. Towards loss of income during 10,000/-
laid-up period.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
5. Towards loss of future income 1,03,680/-
on account of permanent
physical disability.
6. Towards loss of amenities and 10,000/-
enjoyment of life.
Total: 3,71,030/-
26. Considering the nature of injuries sustained,
compensation awarded by Tribunal is lesser side.
Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by
modifying the judgment and award.
27. The accident occurred on 21.01.2014.
PW-3/Doctor has deposed that the appellant has sustained
fracture right wrist forearm communicated fracture distal
end of both bones (ulna with radius) left knee joint tibia
communicated fracture of upper end of left tibia and he
has assessed disability at 70%, but the Tribunal has
committed an error in considering only 9% towards
permanent physical disability, which is on lower side.
Therefore, considering the evidence of the PW-3/Doctor
and also Ex.P-169/disability certificate, 20% of permanent
physical disability is taken into consideration.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
28. The claimant was aged 32 years old at the time
of accident. Accordingly as per the age group mentioned in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme
Court Cases 680, and as per the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in New India Assurance
Company Vs. Abdul S/o Mehaboob Tahasildar in MFA
No.103807/2016 C/w. MFA Nos.103835/2016 &
103807/2018 and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
and another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, even in
the case of injuries, certain income is to be added towards
loss of future prospects in life.
29. The accident is caused in the year 2014. The
claimant was student. The Tribunal without appreciating
the evidence on record properly, has taken monthly
income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/-, which is incorrect.
According to the income chart prepared by the Karnataka
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
State Legal Service Authority, monthly income of the
claimant is Rs.7,500/- taken into consideration. The
claimant was aged 32 years old at the time of accident.
Therefore, appropriate applicable multiplier is 16. In view
of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of the income is to be added
towards loss of future prospects in life. Thus, the claimant
is entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of future
income including loss future prospects in life' as under:
Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,000/- (40% of Rs.7,500/-) = Rs.10,500/-
Rs.10,500/- x 20% x 16 x 12 = Rs.4,03,200/-
30. Considering the injuries sustained, a
compensation of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities are awarded. The
compensation awarded towards medical expenses is as per
the actual bills and receipts produced. Hence, the same is
kept intact. Further, a compensation of Rs.15,000/-
towards incidental expenses like food, nourishment, diet,
attendant charges and conveyance charges etc., Further, a
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income
during laid up period for a period of 2 months, is awarded.
31. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation under various heads as under:
Sl. Heads. Amount
No.
1. Towards injuries, pain and Rs.35,000/-
suffering.
2. Towards medical expenses. Rs.2,17,350/-
3. Towards loss of amenities. Rs.30,000/-
4. Towards loss of income Rs.15,000/-
during laid up period and
medical treatment period.
5. Towards incidental charges Rs.15,000/-
like attendant charges, food,
nourishment, conveyance,
etc.,.
6. Towards loss of future Rs.04,03,200/-
earning capacity.
Total: Rs.7,15,550/-
32. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.7,15,550/-, along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till
realization, as against Rs.3,71,030/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
the compensation within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
33. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeals filed by the owner of the
bus in MFA Nos.101568 and 101569 of
2017 are allowed.
ii. The appeals filed by the claimants in
MFA Nos.101341 and 103142 of 2017
are allowed-in-part.
iii. The judgment and award dated
24.01.2017 passed in MVC Nos.172 and
173 of 2014 on the file of Principal
Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri
stand modified holding that the
Insurance Company shall indemnify the
owner of the bus by paying
compensation to the claimants.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
iv. The claimant in MFA No.101341/2017
(MVC No.172/2014) is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.7,15,550/- as
against compensation of Rs.3,71,030/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
v. The claimant in MFA No.101342/2017
(MVC No.173/2014) is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,24,810/- as
against compensation of Rs.1,27,250/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
vi. The total compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till its
realization.
vii. Insurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7397
viii. The amount in deposit made by the
owner of the bus in MFA Nos.101568
and 101569 of 2017 shall be refunded to
his bank account.
ix. No order as to costs.
x. Draw award accordingly.
xi. In view of the disposal of the appeals,
pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PMP para 1 to 23
SRA para 24 to end
CT:BCK
