[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs L Praveenkumar S/O Laxmichand on 23 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.25488 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25488 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NWKRTC HAVERI, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI.
(OWNER OF THE SELF INSURANCE OF THE KSRTC
BEARING NO.KA-27/F-110 BY ITS HIREKERUR DEPOT,
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
L. PRAVEENKUMAR S/O LAXMICHAND,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: RICE MILL PARTNER,
R/O: CHANNAKESHAV NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12-07-
2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.115/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:10
COMPENSATION OF ₹4,37,238/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
+0530
P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION & ETC.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-2-
MFA No.25488 of 2012
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the North West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation, Haveri, ('Corporation' for short)
challenging the judgment and award dated 12.07.2012
passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT,
Ranebennur ('the Tribunal' for short), in M.V.C.
No.115/2006, whereby compensation of ₹4,37,238/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization was awarded.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('M.V. Act' for short) stating
that on 13.07.2003, while he was travelling in a car bearing
registration No.CNS 5379 from Shiralakoppa towards Kittur,
a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-27/F-110, driven in
a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite
direction near Holabikond Bus Stand and dashed against the
car. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained
grievous injuries including fracture of the right shoulder,
fracture of the scapula and dislocation of the right shoulder.
He was initially treated at the Government Hospital,
Hirekerur, and thereafter, as an inpatient at Bapuji Hospital,
Davanagere, and subsequently at Santhosh Hospital,
Bengaluru. It was contended that the claimant incurred
substantial medical expenses and suffered permanent
disability, which affected his earning capacity and
enjoyment of life. On these grounds, compensation of
₹20,00,000/- with interest was claimed.
4. The respondent-Corporation filed its statement
of objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition and contended that the accident occurred due to
the negligence of the driver of the car and not due to the
driver of the bus.
5. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, framed
issues for consideration. The claimant examined himself as
PW-1 and the doctor as PW-2 and produced documents
marked as Exs.P1 to P25. After considering the evidence on
record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded compensation of ₹4,37,238/- with interest at 6%
per annum. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
Corporation has preferred the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
awarding a total compensation of ₹4,37,238/- is exorbitant,
disproportionate, and not supported by the evidence on
record. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by the
respondent herein/claimant were fracture of the right
shoulder, scapula, and dislocation of the right shoulder, and
that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation
without properly appreciating the nature of injuries,
treatment, and actual impact on earning capacity.
7. It is further contended that the Tribunal has
erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the bus. According to the
appellant, the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the driver of the car, and the respondent failed to examine
any independent eyewitnesses to establish negligence on
the part of the bus driver. Despite this, the Tribunal has
wrongly fastened liability on the appellant.
8. The learned counsel also submitted that the
compensation awarded under various heads such as pain
and suffering, medical expenses, food and nourishment,
attendant charges, taxi charges, loss of happiness and
discomfort, and loss of income is on the higher side and not
commensurate with the injuries suffered. It is therefore
urged that the impugned award is illegal, erroneous, and
unsustainable in law and calls for interference by this Court
by suitably modifying or setting aside the award.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant
supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
and submitted that the compensation awarded is just and
reasonable, based on the evidence on record, and does not
call for interference.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record.
11. On re-appreciation of the material on record, this
Court finds no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal on
negligence. The police records and oral evidence of the
claimant clearly establish the negligence on the part of the
bus driver. Hence, the finding on negligence is affirmed.
12. However, insofar as the quantum of
compensation is concerned, the accident is of the year
2003. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority, the notional income has to be
taken at ₹3,250/- per month. The Tribunal has taken a
higher income while calculating loss of future income, which
requires modification.
13. The claimant sustained fracture of the right
shoulder, fracture of the scapula and dislocation of the right
shoulder. Considering the nature of injuries and the
evidence of PW-2, the functional disability affecting the
earning capacity of the claimant is reasonably assessed at
20% to the whole body. The age of the claimant being 32
years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16.
Accordingly, the loss of future income is recalculated as
under:
Monthly income : ₹3,250/-
Annual income : ₹3,250 × 12 = ₹39,000/-
Disability : 20%
Multiplier : 16
Loss of future income : ₹39,000 × 10% × 15 = ₹1,24,800/-
14. In respect of the compensation awarded under
the other heads, no interference is called for and the same
is retained. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is reassessed as follows:
Sl. Head of Awarded by Reassessed by
No. Compensation Tribunal (₹) this Court (₹)
1 Pain and sufferings 50,000 50,000
2 Medical expenses 1,70,238 1,70,238
Food and
3 5,000 5,000
nourishment
4 Attendant charges 5,000 5,000
5 Taxi charges 5,000 5,000
Loss of unhappiness
6 10,000 10,000
and discomfort
Loss of future
7 1,92,000 1,24,800
income
Total 4,37,238 3,70,038
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of ₹3,70,038/- as against ₹4,37,238/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award dated
12.07.2012 passed by the Additional
Senior Civil Judge and AMACT,
Ranebennur, in M.V.C. No.115/2006, is
modified.
(iii) The claimant shall be entitled to a total
compensation of ₹3,70,038/- as against
₹4,37,238/- awarded by the Tribunal, with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
(iv) The compensation amount shall be
satisfied by the appellant - Corporation
within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) The amount, if any, deposited in excess
shall be refunded to the appellant-
Corporation.
(vi) Parties shall bear their own costs.
(vii) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
RSH / CT:VP
