Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt. S. Sunkavva W/O Mayappa Mulagund on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13714
MFA No. 100888 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100888 OF 2018
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.W.K.R.T.C., HAVERI DIVISION,
DISTRICT: HAVERI, CUSTODIAN OF BUS BEARING
REGN. NO.KA.42/F-0794.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C. HAVERI AND
SELF INSURANCE FUND AUTHORITY,
HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI.
BOTH APPELLANTS ARE
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
SMT. S. SUNKAVVA W/O. MAYAPPA MULAGUND
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK (NOW NIL),
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD R/O: BADIGER ONI, GADAG,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT: GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
HAVERI IN M.V.C. NO.198/2016 DATED 25.10.2017 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13714
MFA No. 100888 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Sri S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for the appellants as
well as Sri Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the respondent.
At request of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for
final hearing and disposal.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is
passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri
in MVC 198 of 2016 dated 25.10.2017. Basing on the petition
filed by the respondent herein to grant compensation of
Rs.9,00,000/- in total, the tribunal through the impugned award
granted a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and projecting
that the said sum is on higher side and that the appellants are
not liable to pay any compensation, the present appeal is filed.
3. The crux of the case as projected by the
respondent/claimant before the tribunal is that on 16.02.2016 at
about 02.55 p.m., while she was travelling in the appellants' bus
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13714
HC-KAR
bearing registration No.KA.42/F.0794, the driver of the said bus
drove the bus without following the traffic rules and regulations
and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which she fell down
from the bus and sustained grievous injuries.
4. Arguing the matter, Sri S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for
the appellants submits that the respondent was standing on the
footboard of the bus and was travelling and though the
conductor of the bus requested the respondent/claimant to sit in
the vacant seat, she refused and when she was hurriedly getting
down the bus, she herself fell down and sustained injuries.
5. Opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel
for the respondent/claimant contends that due to the negligence
of the driver of the bus, the accident occurred and the
respondent sustained injuries.
6. Except the oral testimony of RW1, there is no other
material on record to show that the respondent/claimant was
negligent. On the other hand, the respondent/claimant apart
from examining herself as PW1, produced Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-
Complaint, Ex.P3-Spot Panchanama, Ex.P4-MVI Report and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13714
HC-KAR
Ex.P7-Charge Sheet. It is not in dispute that police after due
investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the bus.
Thus in the light of the evidence thus produced, this Court is of
the view that the tribunal did not err in fastening liability against
the appellants herein.
7. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation
that was awarded by the tribunal, the respondent/claimant by
producing all medical records established that she incurred
medical expenditure to a tune of Rs.2,30,212.26. The tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- globally. So a sum of
Rs.69,787.74 was granted as compensation towards pain and
suffering, extra nourishment, food, attendant and conveyance
charges, loss of amenities etc., Thus this Court is of the view
that the sum granted as compensation in total i.e. Rs.3,00,000/-
is not exorbitant.
8. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, as pleaded
by learned counsel for the appellants, the rate of interest is
required to be 6% per annum and not 7% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. Therefore the appeal is
disposed of with the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13714
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The rate of interest on the awarded amount is
reduced from 7% to 6% per annum.
(iii) The observations of the tribunal on all other
aspects holds good.
(iv) Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
