Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director vs Sri Ramesh on 23 June, 2025

                                             -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:21675
                                                       MFA No. 5933 of 2016
                                                   C/W MFA No. 7562 of 2016

                   HC-KAR


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5933 OF 2016 (MV-I)
                                            C/W
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7562 OF 2016 (MV-I)

                   IN MFA No. 5933/2016

                   BETWEEN:

                      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                      APSRTC BUS BHAVAN,
                      MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD,
                      ANDHRA PRADESH.
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed      SRI. RAMESH,
by                    S/O SRI. CHOWDAPPA,
SHARADAVANI
B                     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
Location: High        R/AT J. VAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
Court of              MUDIYANUR POST,
Karnataka
                      MULBAGAL TALUK,
                      KOLAR DIST. - 563 101.
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
                   JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC
                   NO.548/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
                   JUDGE & CJM, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:21675
                                    MFA No. 5933 of 2016
                                C/W MFA No. 7562 of 2016

HC-KAR


RS.2,05,250/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION.
IN MFA NO. 7562/2016

BETWEEN:

   SRI. RAMESH
   S/O CHOWDAPPA,
   AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
   R//AT J VAMMSANDRA VILLAGE,
   MUDIYANUR POST,
   MULBAGAL TALUK,
   KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
                                         ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
   ANDHRA PRADESH STATE,
   ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
   MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD,
   ANDHRA PRADESH - 500 030.
                                       ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2016 PASSED
IN MVC NO.548/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & CJM, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
                                       -3-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:21675
                                                 MFA No. 5933 of 2016
                                             C/W MFA No. 7562 of 2016

HC-KAR




                             ORAL JUDGMENT

Both the owner of the vehicle (for short ' the

corporation') as well as claimant preferred these appeals,

challenging the judgment and award dated 25.02.2016,

passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar

(for short "the tribunal"), in MVC No.548/2013.

Corporation filed in MFA No.5933/2016 challenging

negligence and quantum of compensation. Claimant filed

appeal in MFA No.7562/2016 for enhancement of

compensation. Both the appeals are taken up together for

disposal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on

21.08.2011, at around 5.00 p.m., the claimant was going

on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EB-8553 towards

Bangalore side; near Bethani village, he met with an

accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus

belonging to corporation bearing registration No.AP-29-Z-

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

288, by its driver. As a result, he sustained fracture of

right femur and right medial malleoleous. He underwent

treatment and has suffered permanent disability to an

extent of 45% in the right lower limb and 15% to the

whole body. The claimant was aged about 28 years at the

time of the accident and he was a driver and earning

Rs.9,000/- per month. With these reasons, the claimant

prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. It appears, the matter was earlier pending

before the Small Causes Court at Bengalore and later on it

was transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge

and MACT, Kolar, on the point of jurisdiction. It appears

that the respondent/corporation did not file written

statement when the matter was pending before MACT,

Kolar.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the

Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination.

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

6. The claimant to prove his case examined two

witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 13 documents,

as per Exs.P-1 to P-13. Respondent/corporation examined

one witness as RW-1.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and

appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by

its driver. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the

claimant as 25 years at the time of the accident, his

earning as Rs.5,000/- per month and disability at 10% to

the whole body, applied the multiplier as `18' and

awarded following amount of compensation:

                  Particulars                 Amount in Rs.

    Pain and sufferings                         25,000/-

    Future loss of income                       1,08,000/-

    Treatment and medical expenses              27,250/-

    Food, nourishment, conveyance and           20,000/-
    attendant charges

    Loss of amenities                           25,000/-

                 Total                        2,05,250/-

                                            NC: 2025:KHC:21675



HC-KAR

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

claimant as well as corporation.

9. Learned counsel for the corporation submits

that the accident took place due to negligence of the

driver of the motorcycle, who hit against the left side of

the bus, indicating that rider of the motorcycle had come

on to the wrong side of the road and hit against the bus.

Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the bus

driver. Since the vehicle belonging to claimant was a two-

wheeler, the police have falsely registered a case against

driver of the bus.

10. The learned Advocate for claimant further

contends that looking at the motor vehicle inspection

report, the said fact is very clear; even the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side.

According to the medical records, the age of the claimant

was 30 years and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

on higher side. With these reasons, prayed to allow the

appeal filed by the corporation.

11. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that,

as per the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1, the bus hit against

the motorcycle from its right side and due to fall of the

vehicle, there was damage to the front side of the

motorcycle. Merely because there was no damage

mentioned in the motor vehicle inspection report does not

mean that the accident did not take place due to head-on

collision. He further contends that RW-1 in his cross-

examination admits that he was driving the bus at a speed

of 80 k.m./h, while the rider of the motorcycle was going

ahead of the bus. RW-1 admits the accident and also

stated that he was charge sheeted for the accident in

question. Therefore, the contention of the

appellant/corporation is not tenable. He further submits

that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is inadequate and prays for enhancement of the

compensation.

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

12. Following points arise for consideration:

(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both vehicles?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

13. As per the Trial Court records, there is no

written statement filed on behalf of the respondent.

Undisputedly, a criminal case was registered against the

driver of the bus. The copy of the FIR, complaint, wound

certificate, M.V. report and charge sheet are placed on

record, as per Exs.P-1 to P-5 and P-8. Both PW-1 and RW-

1 in their respective evidence have stated that the

motorcycle was going ahead and the bus was following it.

At the spot of accident, there was a collision between both

vehicles. Even in the cross-examination, RW-1 who is

driver of the bus has stated that the bus hit the

motorcycle from its right side. It is true that, there was no

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

damage to the right side of the motorcycle as per Ex.P-3.

Therefore, the correctness of Ex.P-3 is doubtful. On that

count alone, it cannot be held that the accident was a

head on collision. In view of the statements of both PW-1

and RW-1, as well as contents of the charge sheet it can

be safely concluded that the bus hit motorcycle on its hind

side. There is no material on record to believe that driver

of the motorcycle went to the wrong side of the road and

hit the front portion of the bus. Therefore, the contentions

of the corporation are contrary to the admission of their

own employee, and hence are not acceptable. In addition,

RW-1 in his evidence admitted that he pleaded guilty

before the concerned Court and paid a fine. Contrary to

this fact, now corporation cannot contend that the accident

occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

14. The injuries sustained by the claimant as stated

in Exs.P-6 and P-7 i.e., fracture of Type IIB Sub

trochanteric fracture of right femur and displaced fracture

of the right medial malleoli. He underwent treatment from

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

21.08.2011 to 15.09.2011. He was again admitted to the

said hospital from 22.11.2012 to 14.02.2013; he

underwent surgery due to some complication, which is

noted in Ex.P-7.

15. The claimant has not produced any records to

prove his age. However, in Ex.P-6 his age is mentioned as

25 years, in Ex.P-7 his age is mentioned as 30 years and

in subsequent medical records his age is mentioned as 25

years. Considering the same, the Tribunal has taken age

of the claimant as 25 years. The same is required to be

accepted.

16. According to the evidence of PW-2, the claimant

has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent

of 45% to the right lower limb and 15% to the whole

body. He further stated that the claimant has to undergo

another surgery for which he has to spend Rs.20,000/- to

Rs.25,000/-. Learned counsel for the corporation submits

that in the second round of admission to the hospital, the

said implants were removed, as stated in Ex.P-7.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

Considering the nature of work he has to do and injury,

functional disability was taken at 10% to whole body. It

does not call for any interference.

17. The Tribunal has taken the income of the

claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month it is on the lower side. It

is true that there is no materials on record to accept the

income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- per month. Following

the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority, income of claimant is taken as

Rs.6,500/- per month. The suitable multiplier applicable in

this case is `18'. On the basis of the said calculations, loss

of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is

assessed.

18. On re-appreciating the materials available on

record, the amount of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, on some of the heads are on the lower side. No

amount of compensation was awarded towards 'loss of

income during laid-up period'. Hence, the claimant is

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

entitled for enhancement. Accordingly, following amount of

compensation is awarded:

                  Particulars                      Amount in Rs.

    Pain and sufferings                                  40,000/-

    Medical expenses                                     27,250/-

    Special    diet,  conveyance            and          30,000/-
    attendant charges

    Loss of income during laid up period                 19,500/-

    (Rs.6,500/- x 3)

    Loss of future earning capacity due to             1,40,400/-
    disability

    (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 18 x 10%)

    Loss of amenities                                    40,000/-

                 Total                                 2,97,150/-

    Amount awarded by the Tribunal                     2,05,250/-

                            Enhancement-                 91,900/-
                                Rounded off-            92,000/-

19. The claimant is also entitled for interest at 6%

p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till

its realization. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21675

HC-KAR

negative and point Nos.2 is answered partly in the

affirmative.

20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) MFA No.5933/2016 is dismissed.

ii) MFA No.7562/2016 is allowed in

part.

             iii)    The   judgment         and    award       dated
     25th           February          2016,        passed         in
     MVC.No.548/2013,            by     the   learned    Principal

Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar, stands modified.

iv) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.92,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.