[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rama S/O Babu @ Balu Magadum vs The General Manager on 2 April, 2026
-1-
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102027 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
RAMA S/O BABU @ BALU MAGADUM
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND
AGRICULTURE
R/O. MANAGUTTI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE GENERAL MANAGER
Digitally signed
by
YASHAVANT
MSRTC,
NARAYANKAR
YASHAVANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
VAHATUK BHUVAN BOMBAY,
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.04.02
12:17:28
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
+0530
M.S.R.T.C, KOLHAPUR,
TQ. AND DIST.: KOLHAPUR,
STATE MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2014 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-V, BELGAUM, IN MVC NO.4/2011 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AND PASS
SUCH OTHER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
16.03.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
The Claimant in MVC No.4/2011 on the file of learned IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi
(hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") has maintained this
appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
2. The claimant instituted MVC No.4/2011 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent for injuries
sustained in a road accident. According to the claimant, on
14.09.2010 at around 5:30 p.m., while traveling as a
passenger in the respondent's bus bearing registration No. MH-
12-CH-7859, near Jaladal Village within Nesari Police Station
limits, the bus overturned, resulting in his injuries.
3. Upon service of notice, the respondent appeared
through counsel, filed objections, and contested the claim. The
Tribunal, after evaluating the merits, partly allowed the
petition. It held that the claimant proved the accident due to
the bus driver's negligence and the resultant injuries.
Consequently, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,14,920/- in
compensation, plus interest at 8% per annum from the date of
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
the petition until realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri Y. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Counsel for
Claimant and Sri C.V. Angadi, learned Counsel for Respondent.
5. The sole issue for consideration is whether the
Tribunal awarded just and adequate compensation to the
claimant.
6. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,14,920/- to the claimant under the following heads:
Sl.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)
1. Future loss of income due to disability 52,920.00
2. Loss of income during laid up period 10,000.00
3. Pain and sufferings 20,000.00
4. Medical expenses 2,000.00
5. Food and nourishment 10,000.00
6. Conveyance and other sundry 10,000.00
expenses
Total : 1,14,920.00
7. Learned Counsel for the Claimant vehemently
contended that the Tribunal erred in adopting Rs.150/- per day
as the claimant's income, instead of the notional income
prescribed in the chart of Karnataka State Legal Services
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the cases before the Lok
Adalat settlement.
8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the Tribunal correctly took the income of the
claimant as Rs.150/- per day, as averred in the claim petition.
A perusal of the record reveals that both the claim petition and
the claimant's chief-examination affidavit categorically state he
was earning Rs.150/- per day from coolie and agricultural work.
The Tribunal thus rightly adopted this figure, warranting
rejection of the claimant's contention.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended
that the Tribunal erred in assessing whole-body disability at
7%, contrary to PW-3 Dr. Satish's opinion of 20% permanent
physical disability to the right upper limb. PW-3 indeed opined,
based on clinical and radiological findings that the claimant
suffered 20% permanent disability to the right upper limb.
However, PW-3 did not specify the equivalent whole-body or
functional disability arising from the accident injuries. The
record discloses the claimant having suffered only an un-
displaced fracture of the right distal radius. In these
circumstances, the Tribunal committed no error in assessing
7% permanent functional disability to the whole body, as limb
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
specific percentages cannot be mechanically equated to whole
body loss without evidence of earning impact.
10. The claimant was aged between 41-45 years at the
time of the accident. The Tribunal correctly applied the '14'
multiplier as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009 ACJ 1298 (SC),
appropriate for this age bracket. Thus, based on its above
referred reasoning, the Tribunal worked out loss of future
income as Rs.52,920/- (i.e., Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 14 x 7%). In
the absence of any contrary material, this computation
warrants retention.
11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities,
Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- each
towards food and nourishment as well as conveyance and
sundry expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income
during laid up period. Taking into consideration nature of injury
suffered by the claimant, probable period of his treatment and
the materials placed on record in support of the contention, this
Court holds the claimant has failed to establish any valid
ground for enhancement, as the compensation awarded under
MFA No.102027 OF 2014
these heads are just and adequate. The point for
determination is accordingly answered in the negative.
12. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. Consequently, the judgment and award dated
19.03.2014 passed in MVC No.4/2011 by learned
IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and
MACT-V, Belagavi is confirmed.
iii. Draw an award accordingly.
iv. The registry is directed to send back record to
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
RKM, YAN
CT: CMU
