[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
K S R T C vs Sri Ashwini on 7 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
MFA No. 4365 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 6898 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4365 OF 2020 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6898 OF 2023 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.4365/2020:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, MANGALORE,
REP. HEREIN BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ASHWINI D/O ARAVIND,
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT KELLUR, KUNNAHALLI VILLAGE,
COURT OF HALASE AND POST, MUDIGERE TALUK,
KARNATAKA
CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI. RAJU S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DRIVER, BADGE NO.107,
KSRTC, MUDIGERE DEPOT,
R/O SIDDESHWARA STREET,
KOTE, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABIJITH M. M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 23.12.2020, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
MFA No. 4365 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 6898 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD MADE BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T. AT MUDIGERE IN M.V.C. NO.116/2019 DATED
18.02.2020. THE APPELLANT CORPORATION FURTHER PRAYS
FOR AWARD OF SUCH OTHER JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
THAT THE HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.6898/2023:
BETWEEN:
SMT. ASHWINI D/O ARAVIND,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT KELLUR, KUNNAHALLI VILLAGE,
HALASE POST, MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 132.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABIJITH M. M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. RAJU S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
DRIVER, BADGE NO.107,
KSRTC, MUDIGERE DEPOT,
R/AT SIDDESHWARA STREET,
KOTE, BELURU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-577 202.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC MANGALORE,
MANGALORE DISTRICT-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 12.08.2024 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
MFA No. 4365 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 6898 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.116/2019 BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. AT MUDIGERE AND ENHANCES
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION OR BY
AWARDING SUCH SUM THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS
JUST AND REASONABLE AND TO PASS SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE
OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF
THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV JUDGMENT
These two appeals are the outcome of the order that
is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mudigere in MVC No.116/2019 dated 18.02.2020. While
MFA No.4365/2020 is filed by the Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation (hereinafter be referred to as
'KSRTC' for brevity) disputing its liability to pay
compensation, MFA No.6898/2023 is filed by the claimant
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
projecting that compensation granted by the Tribunal is on
lower side.
2. Heard Sri. G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel
who represents KSRTC as well as Sri Abijit M.M., learned
counsel who represents claimant.
3. The matrix of the case as projected by the
claimant before the Tribunal is that, on 18.04.2017 at
about 11.15 a.m. while she was proceeding on a
motorcycle as a pillion, a bus of KSRTC bearing
Registration No.KA-18/F-0086 which came from Belur side
towards Mudigere being driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner hit the motorcycle, due to which she
sustained grievous injuries.
4. Learned counsel who represented KSRTC
submitted that the Tribunal without proper appreciation of
the evidence of RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R6, fastened liability
against KSRTC. Learned counsel contended that the rider
of the motorcycle was a minor as on the date of accident
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
and he was not holding driving licence to ride the
motorcycle. The said boy was driving the motorcycle along
with pillion i.e., the claimant. Due to his sole negligence,
the accident occurred. The driver of KSRTC was driving the
bus cautiously and by observing all road rules and
regulations. Thus, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened
liability upon KSRTC. Learned counsel also stated that the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive.
Learned counsel thereby sought to allow the appeal filed
by KSRTC and thereby exonerate KSRTC from liability to
pay compensation to the claimant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel who represented the
claimant stated that the accident occurred due to sole
negligence on part of the driver of KSRTC. The manner of
happening of accident itself speaks that the driver of
KSRTC was at fault. Learned counsel also contended that
basing on the complaint given, a case was registered by
police against the driver of KSRTC and after due
investigation filed charge sheet against the said driver
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
alone. Only because the rider of motorcycle was not
holding driving licence, liability cannot be fastened against
the owner of the motorcycle exonerating the liability of
KSRTC when records clearly speak that the driver of
KSRTC was at fault.
6. So far as quantum is concerned, learned counsel
who represented the claimant submitted that the claimant
was studying II-PUC as on the date of accident. However,
as the college was not full time, she was doing coolie work
to support her parents and thereby she was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month by the date of accident. Learned
counsel also stated that the accident occurred in the year
2017 and for the relevant period, for settlement of claims,
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the
notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month and at least
said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal.
But the Tribunal took the notional income of the claimant
as Rs.4,000/- per month only. Learned counsel further
submitted that the Tribunal failed to award any
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
compensation towards the loss the claimant sustained
during laid up period financially.
7. Coming to the aspects of negligence and liability,
as rightly contended by learned counsel who represented
the claimant, basing on the complaint given, a case was
registered against the driver of KSRTC and after due
investigation charge sheet was filed against the said
driver. No material whatsoever is on record to establish in
clear terms that the rider of motorcycle was at fault.
Though the version of KSRTC is that it appointed an
investigator and said investigator investigated into the
case and reported, said report was not produced by KSRTC
for the reasons best known. On the other hand, by all the
evidence produced, claimant succeeded in establishing
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of KSRTC. Therefore, this Court is of
the view that the Tribunal did not err in fastening liability
upon KSRTC and directing it to pay compensation to the
claimant for the loss she sustained.
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
8. Regarding quantum, as rightly put forth by learned
counsel who represented KSRTC, claimant failed to
produce sufficient proof to substantiate her version that
she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as on the date of
accident. However, the Tribunal ought to have taken the
notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month which figure is
being adopted by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
for the relevant period for settlement of claims. The
Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability in respect of
whole body as 6.66%. Thus, taking the notional income as
Rs.11,000/- per month and without disturbing other
parameters i.e., application of appropriate multiplier '18'
and disability in respect of whole body as 6.66%, the
compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive
towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.1,58,241.66/-
rounded off to Rs.1,58,242/- (Rs.11,000 x 12 x 18 x
6.66%). Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to a
sum of Rs.80,559/- only towards loss of future earnings.
Thus, the additional sum which the claimant is entitled to
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.77,683/-
(Rs.1,58,242 - Rs.80,559).
9. Having considered the fact that the claimant
sustained fracture of shaft of right femur and took
extensive treatment for the said injury and during the
course of treatment underwent a surgery also, this Court
is of the view that the claimant could not have attended
her normal pursuits at least for a period of three months.
Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to
Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000 x 3).
10. Thus, the total sum which claimant is entitled to
receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the
Tribunal is Rs.1,10,683/- (Rs.77,683 + Rs.33,000/-).
11. Therefore, both the appeals are disposed of with
the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal in MFA No.4365/2020 is
dismissed.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
(ii) The appeal in MFA No.6898/2023 is
allowed in part.
(iii) The compensation that is granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mudigere
through orders in MVC No.116/2019 dated
18.02.2020 is enhanced by Rs.1,10,683/-.
(iv) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
(v) KSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(vi) On such deposit, claimant is permitted to
withdraw the same.
(vii) Amount, if any in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18804
HC-KAR
In the light of the disposal of appeals, the
proceedings in I.A No.1/2023 in MFA No.4365/2020 are
closed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
LG
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
CT:SI
