[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Erappa vs P. Chinnabasavaiah S/O Late ... on 2 April, 2026
-1-
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
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.103689 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O ERAPPA
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER AT S.V.V.M.,
PRIVATE SCHOOL,
HOLAKOTE VILLAGE IN SIRUGUPPA,
TALUK OF BALLARI DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location:
AND:
HIGH COURT
YASHAVANT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.04.02
12:17:45
+0530
1. P. CHINNABASAVAIAH S/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH,
AGE:43 YEARS,
DRIVER OF THE KSRTC
BUS BEARING REGN.NO.KA-36/F-930,
KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
OWNER OF THE KSRTC
BUS BEARING REGN.NO.KA-36/F-930,
KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:08.10.2015,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.574/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - XII, AT BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
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. 103689 OF 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
The claimant in MVC No.574/2014 on the file of learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- XII at Ballari (in short, 'the
Tribunal') has maintained this appeal seeking enhancement of
the compensation.
2. The claimant instituted the petition in MVC No.
574/2014 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying
for compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- towards the injuries
sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on
26.03.2014, caused by actionable negligence attributable to the
driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-36-F-930. The case of
the claimant is that on 26.03.2014 he and his aunt were
proceeding in a motorcycle bearing No.KA-34-EF-3429 from
Thimmalapura Village towards Ballari. At about 12.00 noon,
when they were near Agricultural Check Post in D.Hirehal
Village, the bus in question came from opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against their
motorcycle, as a result he sustained grievous injuries.
3. On service of the notice, both the driver of the bus
and the owner/ the Division Controller of NEKRTC, Koppal
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
Division (in short, 'the Corporation') appeared before the
Tribunal through their counsel and the petition was contested
by the Corporation by filing the written statement. Afterwards,
the Tribunal framed the issues, held enquiry in the matter and
then disposed of the claim petition on merits of the case.
4. The Tribunal, on a careful consideration of the
materials available on record, held that the claimant met with
an accident on 26.03.2014 due to rash and negligent driving on
the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus in question, and
sustained injuries in the said incident. The Tribunal appreciated
the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- to the
claimant by way of compensation, and accordingly allowed the
claim petition in part. The respondents have not challenged the
impugned award. However, the claimant, being dissatisfied
with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
directed this appeal against the impugned award praying to
award just and reasonable compensation.
5. Sri Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned Counsel for
Claimant vehemently submitted that the claimant was working
as a teacher in a private school and earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month at the relevant point of time but the
Tribunal erroneously took his income as Rs.5,000/- per month.
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
He further submitted that though PW-2, the doctor who
examined the claimant, assessed the disability in the claimant
at 20%, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability to
10%. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, medical
expenses, attendant charges, loss of income during laid up
period and loss of amenities is on lower side and as such,
prayed to modify the impugned award and to award just and
reasonable compensation as sought in the claim petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned
Counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and that the
Tribunal has rightly arrived at the said amount based on facts
and circumstances of the case and the materials available on
record. He contended that the claimant has not made out any
valid reason to modify the impugned award and prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Based on the arguments advanced before this Court
and the materials on record, the sole issue arising for
consideration is whether the claimant has established valid
grounds for enhancement of the compensation.
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,78,000/- to the claimant under the following heads:
Sl.No. Heads Amount (in ₹)
1. Pain and suffering 30,000.00
2. Medical expenses and attendant 30,000.00
charges
3. Loss of future earning capacity or 1,08,000.00
disability
4. Loss of amenities of life. 10,000.00
Total 1,78,000.00
9. In his evidence, the claimant has claimed fractures
to the right femur, right knee joint, right middle finger, right
thigh along with bleeding injuries across the body from the
accident in question. However, the record - particularly the
wound certificate (Ex.P3) and discharge summary (Ex.P4),
establishes only one grievous injury namely a fracture of the
middle 1/3rd of the right femur alongside two simple injuries.
Even PW-2, Dr. K.V.P. Rao, testified solely to the fracture at the
shaft of the right femur. The Tribunal, duly considering the
nature of these injuries and the claimant's six-day in-patient
treatment from 26.03.2014 to 01.04.2014, awarded
Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. In the facts
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the award
constitutes just and adequate compensation under this head.
10. The claimant has produced medical bills and
prescriptions (Ex.P7 and P8) evidencing total expenditure of
Rs.17,180/- on in-patient treatment, subsequent care, hospital
charges, medicines, diagnostic tests, and implant removal. The
Tribunal, accounting for these documented costs alongside
probable incidental expenses, awarded Rs.30,000/- under the
head of medical expenses and attendant charges. This Court
finds no valid grounds to enhance the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal under this head.
11. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- to the
claimant under the head of loss of future income on account of
disability. It arrived at the said figure by taking income of the
claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month, multiplier as '18' and
percentage of permanent disability as 10%. The claimant has
contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly
income as Rs.10,000/- and disability as 20%.
12. According to the claimant, he was aged 25 years
and earning monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- per month by
working as a teacher in private school, as on the date of
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
accident. However, he did not produce any document before
the Tribunal to support any of these contentions. In spite of the
same, the Tribunal based on the age of the claimant mentioned
in the wound certificate, considered him as aged 24 years at
the time of accident and assumed his income notionally as
Rs.5,000/- per month.
13. On the other hand, the Corporation has adduced
evidence before the Tribunal to rebut the above contentions of
the claimant. RW-1 - Sri Maruti Y. Pujar, who was working as
the Divisional Security Inspector in the Corporation, stated that
as per the instructions of his higher ups, he visited Sri
Veerabhadreshwara Vidya Mandir, Higher Primary School,
No.64, Halekote Village, Sirguppa Taluk on 06.08.2014, met
the Headmaster of the said school and secured relevant
information as per Ex.R1. As per the contents of said
document, the claimant was born on 01.06.1989 and he was
getting monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. The cross-examination of
RW-1 reveals that the claimant has not disputed the
statements made by RW-1 on oath. It is relevant to note that
though the claimant contended that he was working as a
teacher in S.V.V.M. School, Halekote and getting salary of
Rs.10,000/- per month, he did not choose to adduce positive
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
evidence before the Tribunal to support his contention. Even
then, the Tribunal has taken notional income of the claimant as
Rs.5,000/- per month, which is more than his actual income at
the relevant point of time.
14. It is true that PW-2, Dr. K.V.P. Rao, opined in his
evidence that the claimant suffered 20% partial permanent
disability, citing muscle wasting in the right thigh, restricted
movement and flexion in the right knee joint, and difficulties in
walking on slopes, squatting, or climbing stairs. Even accepting
PW-2's testimony in toto, there is no basis to presume any loss
of future earning capacity from these injuries, as the alleged
disabilities bear no direct impact on the claimant's earning
potential as a teacher. Moreover, PW-2 did not specifically
attribute any permanent physical disability or loss of future
earning capacity to the accident injuries. Nevertheless, the
Tribunal adopted a 10% disability percentage and computed
loss of future income at Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x
10%). As the Corporation has not challenged the impugned
award, there is no scope for modifying or reducing the
compensation under this head. At any rate, the claimant has
furnished no valid grounds for seeking enhancement thereof.
MFA No. 103689 OF 2015
15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under
the head of loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court holds that it is a just compensation. For the
reasons stated above, it is held that the claimant has not made
out any valid grounds to modify the impugned award and
enhance the compensation as prayed in this appeal. Hence,
the point for consideration is answered in the negative.
16. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
RKM,YAN
CT: CMU
