[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller vs Kumarswamy S/O. V V Ayyanna on 8 April, 2026

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

                                                         -1-
                                                                      NC: 2026:KHC-D:5217
                                                                  MFA No. 20411 of 2013


                             HC-KAR



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                                   DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
                                                  BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
                             MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20411 OF 2013 (MV)

                            BETWEEN:
                            THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
                            NEKRTC, HOSPET DIVISION, HOSPET.
                            THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY
                            ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
                            CENTRAL OFFICE SARIGE SADANA, GULBARGA.
                                                                               ...APPELLANT
                            (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:
                            1.   KUMARSWAMY S/O V V AYYANNA,
                                 AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BELDAR MESTRY.
                                 R/O NEAR DEVAMMA TEMPLE,
                                 OLD DAROJI VILLGE,
                                 TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BELLARY.

                            2.   SHANKRAPPA S/O MANAPPA VADAVI,
                                 AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
                                 R/O. BATRU VILLAGE, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI                   3.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
                                 NEKRTC, BELLARY, BELLARY.
                                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.09 10:09:33
+0100




                            (NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)


                                   THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
                            VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02-06-
                            2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1377/2011 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR
                            ACCIDENT    CLAIMS   TRIBUNAL-XII,   BELLARY,   AWARDING     THE
                            COMPENSATION OF RS.1,50,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
                            6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT & ETC.
                                -2-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC-D:5217
                                         MFA No. 20411 of 2013


HC-KAR




     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Since matter is of year 2013, it is taken up for disposal.

2. Challenging judgment and award dated 02.06.2012

passed by MACT-XII, Belagavi ('Tribunal', for short) in MVC

no.1377/2011, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for

appellant submitted appeal was by NEKRTC. It was submitted

that as per claimant on 19.07.2007 when claimant was riding

motorcycle no.KA-34/U-3408 on Ballari - Hosapete road near

Allipura, driver of bus no.KA-34/F-603 drove it in rash and

negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing

accident. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and

despite taking treatment at VIMS Ballari and St.Mary Hospital, he

did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity.

Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against NEKRTC.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5217

HC-KAR

4. On appearance, respondents denied entire claim

petition averments. NEKRTC denied accident had occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of Bus by its driver and alleged

negligence against rider of motorcycle. Based on pleadings,

Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant along

with Dr.Lakshminarayana deposed as PWs1 and 2 and got

marked Exhibits P1 to P13. Driver of Bus was examined as RW1

and Exhibits R1 and R2 got marked.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of Bus by its driver and

claimant was entitled for compensation of ₹1,50,500/- with

interest at 6% per annum from NEKRTC. Aggrieved, appeal was

filed.

6. It was submitted Tribunal erred in concluding that

after crossing speed breaker, driver lost control of Bus and

dashed against motorcycle by disbelieving accident spot sketch

and accepting charge sheet as substantiating actionable

negligence.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5217

HC-KAR

7. On quantum, it was urged that assessment of

disability at 25% to whole body by PW2 who was an orthopedic

surgeon and not Neurologist had led to excessive award. On

above grounds sought for allowing appeal.

8. From above, points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether finding of Tribunal regarding occurrence of accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Bus by its driver is justified?

and

2. Whether Tribunal erred in awarding compensation towards future loss of income?

9. Point no.1: To establish actionable negligence

against respondents, claimants relied upon 110 notice, FIR, spot

panchanama, Motor Vehicle Accident Inspector's report and

charge sheet. Though Ex.P4/R1-spot sketch is sought to be relied

upon to contend NEKRTC driver was not rash and negligent in

causing accident, contents of accident spot panchanama-Ex.P3,

spot sketch-Ex.P4/Ex.R1 would reveal that road at accident spot

runs East-West with Bus in question driven from West to East, on

a 24 feet wide tar road with 10 feet kachcha road on either side.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5217

HC-KAR

Accident spot shown is at a distance of 3 feet from southern

edge of tar road clearly indicating that accident spot would be on

extreme right side of Bus. Besides, police after investigation

have charge sheeted driver on causing accident on account of

rash and negligent driving. Though, driver has deposed as RW1,

based on documentary evidence, Tribunal disbelieved deposition

holding RW1 for rash and negligent and causing accident, based

on correct appreciation of material on record and by assigning

reasons. Hence, point no.1 is answered in affirmative.

10. Point no.2: On quantum it is seen Ex.P6-wound

certificate issued would mention only abrasion injury apart from

blunt injury to head. Abrasion injury is noted to be simple.

Insofar as blunt injury to head, X-ray taken does not indicated

any fracture. However, Ex.P9 to P13 treatment records of

claimant indicate that claimant had irritable behavior during

treatment. Doctors suspected neurological effect and appear to

have investigated same. However, CT Scan report is not

produced. Only CT Scan films along with X-rays are produced.

Ex.P10-discharge summary does not indicate any neurological

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5217

HC-KAR

issues. However, PW2 has issued Ex.P12-disability certificate

assessing 25% disability.

11. Careful perusal of Ex.P12-disability certificate would

indicate reference to CT Scan report which as noted above is not

produced and marked. Interestingly, Ex.P13 X-ray report refers

to fracture of fibula which would contradict wound certificate.

12. In any case, there is no disability assessed on

account of fracture of fibula. Apart from above it is seen that,

PW2 is an Orthopedician and not a neurologist. When treatment

records do not refer to any neurological disorder, consequent to

accidental injuries, it was not appropriate for Tribunal to have

believed assessment by PW2 for awarding compensation towards

future loss of income. Therefore, compensation awarded towards

future loss of income would require to be set aside. Hence, point

no.2 is answered in affirmative.

13. Consequently, following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed in part. Judgment

and award dated 02.06.2012 passed by

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5217

HC-KAR

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII,

Bellary in MVC no.1377/2011, is

modified.