[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Kumar Abhishek S/O Suaraj Kulakarni on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
MFA No. 100277 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100277 OF 2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
M.S.R.T.C. KOLHAPUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
MSRTC SANGLI DIVISION,
NEAR MSRTC BUS STAND, SANGLI-416416.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASR NAMAZI, ADVOCATE (VC)
AND:
KUMAR ABHISHEK S/O SURAJ KULAKARNI,
OCC: STUDENT , SINCE MINOR, AGE: 17 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY SURAJ
S/O CHANDRAKANT KULAKARNI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: VEGETABLE VENDOR,
R/O: MUCHCHANDI, TQ: & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENT
(SOLE RESPONDENT "INSUFFICIENT" ADDRESS)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.07 05:45:04
+0100 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2237/2017 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.4,54,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
MFA No. 100277 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Matter is listed for fourth time for further orders for steps
to unserved respondent.
2. Sri ASR Namazi, learned counsel for appellant-MSRTC
appearing through videoconferencing, submits that despite
efforts appellant is unable to ensure service of notice on
respondent, prompting this Court to hear matter for admission.
3. It was submitted appeal was by MSRTC owner of Bus
questioning award on quantum as well as finding regarding
contributory negligence. As per claimant at 06.30 p.m. on
13.06.2016, when claimant was a pillion rider on motorcycle
no.MH-10/BU-4750, near Tanang Cross of Meeraj-Pandarpur
Road, driver of MSRTC Bus No.MH-14/BT-3424, drove it in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing
accident. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and
despite treatment at Government Hospital and Dr.Kumbar
Hospital, Miraj, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of
earning capacity. Claiming compensation, he filed claim petition
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against MSRTC-owner of
Bus.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
HC-KAR
4. On service of notice, claim petition was opposed on
ground of contributory negligence as well as on quantum. Based
on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and Dr.SD Patil, as PW1 and 2 and
got marked Ex.P1 to P11. MSRTC examined its driver as RW1
and did not lead any documentary evidence.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to sole negligence of driver of Bus, assessed compensation
of ₹4,54,800/- and held MSRTC liable to pay said compensation.
Aggrieved, present appeal was filed assailing same.
6. It was submitted that at time of accident, there were
two pillion riders on motorcycle, indicating that rider of
motorcycle was negligent. Further, there was no justification for
assessment of disability at 13%. Besides award of ₹60,000/-
towards pain and suffering, comforts, etc., and ₹94,800/-
towards medical expenses was unjustified and sought
enhancement. Even award of interest at 9% per annum was
excessive and sought modification.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
HC-KAR
8. From above, it is seen that this appeal is by MSRTC
challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence as well as assailing
award on quantum. In view of above, points that would arise for
consideration are:
(i) Whether finding of Tribunal on negligence is
calls for interference?
(ii) Whether assessment of compensation calls for
interference?
9. Point no.(i): Though, challenge on negligence is based
entirely on contention that at time of accident there were three
persons on motorcycle with carrying capacity of 'two', it is settled
law that carrying excess passengers would be a violation
attracting fine and cannot by itself be basis for contributory
negligence. While passing impugned award, Tribunal noted that
Police after investigation had filed charge sheet only against
driver of Bus. Apart from above, on perusal of Ex.P4-spot
panchanama, Tribunal noted reference to existence of brake
marks running extending to 45 feet. Based on above material,
Tribunal arrived at its finding on negligence.
10. There is no challenge on ground that observation is
without any basis or contrary to material on record. Since finding
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
HC-KAR
is based on some material, there will be no scope for
interference with same. Even on quantum, there is no dispute
that injured claimant in instant case was a minor. Tribunal
assessed compensation as per method evolved in Master
Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance
Company Limited & Anr, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396.
There is no dispute that PW2 assessed limb disability at 40%.
Tribunal has moderated same to 13% as functional disability.
Same cannot be stated to be either grossly excessive or without
any basis. Hence, award of ₹3,00,000/- would be justified.
Insofar as award of ₹60,000/- towards pain and suffering, etc.,
though, learned counsel would be justified that same would be
contrary to decision in Master Mallikarjun's case. Normally,
apart from lump sum compensation towards pain and suffering,
loss of earning capacity as well as amenities, claimant would be
entitled for compensation towards medical expenses and loss of
earning of parents during treatment and recuperation and money
spent towards conveyance etc. Tribunal has examined medical
reports and bills while awarding ₹94,800/- towards medical
expenses. Accident in question occurred in the year 2016.
Notional income during said year is ₹8,750/-. Even if, period of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4944
HC-KAR
four months is considered as loss of income during laid up
period, same would come to ₹35,000/-. Some amount would
require to be awarded towards conveyance also. On overall
consideration, award of ₹60,000/- can be adjusted towards loss
of income during laid up period and towards conveyance and
other incidental expenses. Consequently, there would be no
scope for interference. Though, award of interest of 9% per
annum is challenged, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been
consistently awarding 9% interest per annum. Therefore, even
said contention cannot be sustained. Points for consideration are
answered in negative. Consequently, appeal is devoid of merits
and is dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal
for payment.
Balance amount to be deposited within 6 weeks.
On deposit, Tribunal to disburse same to claimant as per
award.
In view of dismissal of appeal, IA nos.1 and 2 of 2020 are
dismissed as unnecessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CKK, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2
