[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Ksrtc vs Fakirsab S/O Mabusab Vanti on 23 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.104351 of 2019
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.104351 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, BELAGAVI-590 001.
(OWNER AND INSURER OF KA-19/F-3301,
ATTACHED TO UDUPI DEPOT)
REPRESENTED BY IT'S N. NAGARAJ
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
FAKIRSAB S/O MABUSAB VANTI
AGE.21 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O MAGNUR, RAMDURG TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 123.
NOW AT 5TH CROSS, AZAM NAGAR,
BERLGAVI-590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
MOHANKUMAR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY/SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
B SHELAR
Digitally signed by
AND AWARD IN MVC NO.636/2018 DATED 09.07.2019 ON THE FILE OF
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:09
+0530 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-IV, BELAGAVI AT
BELAGAVI IN RESPECT OF FIXING THE LIABILITY ON THE APPELLANT
AND ALSO THE QUANTUM OF AWARD AMOUNT, WHICH IS AT HIGHER
SIDE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 09.01.2026 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.104351 of 2019
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-KSRTC
calling in question the Judgment and Award dated
09.07.2019 passed by the Court of IV Additional District
Judge and MACT-IV, Belagavi, ('the Tribunal' for short) in
MVC No.636/2018, wherein compensation of Rs.4,65,474/-
with interest at 6% per annum was awarded in favour of
the claimant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that;
On 04.03.2017, the petitioner, Fakirsab Mabusab Vanti
was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19/F-3301
from Ramdurg to Kundapur. At about 5:00 A.M., near Bailur
Cross on Murdeshwar-Bhatkal road, the bus allegedly went
out of control due to rash and negligent driving by its driver
and dashed into a heap of wooden logs placed by the
roadside. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries and was
initially admitted to Government Hospital, Murdeshwar,
before being shifted to KIMS, Hubballi as inpatient for
further treatment. He incurred expenses of over
Rs.1,50,000/- for medical treatment. At the time of the
accident, the petitioner was aged 19 years and working as
coolie earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries,
he suffered permanent physical disability and was unable to
continue the previous work, resulting in a loss of income.
Hence, petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of
M.V.Act seeking compensation.
3. The respondent filed objections and denied that
the accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver
and disputed the petitioner's claim regarding medical
expenses, age, income, disability, and occupation. It is
contended that the driver of the KSRTC bus was driving
with care and caution, and the accident occurred only
because another vehicle suddenly appeared in the middle of
the road while attempting to overtake. To avoid a head-on
collision, the bus driver swerved to the roadside, which led
to the accident. The respondent further alleged that the
police filed a false charge sheet against the bus driver and
therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed issues. The petitioner was examined as
P.W.1, the doctor was examined as P.W.3 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P19. The respondent-Corporation did not lead any
evidence. The Tribunal after assessing the oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
with costs and awarded compensation of Rs.4,65,474/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
5. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the
appellant-Corporation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the Tribunal wrongly relied on the evidence of PW-3,
who was not the treated doctor, and accepted the disability
certificate assessing 50% disability to the limb without any
proper basis. Though whole-body disability was assessed at
12%, the Tribunal erred in presuming functional disability at
20%. He submits that considering that the claimant
sustained fracture of toes and medial malleolus and was
treated as an inpatient only for 14 days, the amounts
awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities
are excessive. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that
physical disability does not automatically result in loss of
future earning. The award of Rs.3,45,600/- towards loss of
future income and the total compensation of Rs.4,65,474/-
are excessive and call for interference.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-claimant submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does
not call for further interference. He submits that the
accident occurred in the year 2017. As per the chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
the notional income for the said year is Rs.10,250/- per
month, the same has to be adopted. The claimant is a
manual worker, and merely because he studied up to SSLC,
it cannot be presumed that he was not doing physical
labour.
8. He further submits that considering the nature of
injuries sustained and their impact on the claimant's ability
to work, assessment of functional disability at 15% is just
and reasonable. He submits that considering the income of
the claimant at Rs.10,250/- and taking disability at 15%,
the compensation under the head loss of earning capacity
has to be awarded. The claimant was hospitalized and
underwent treatment. Taking the monthly income at
Rs.10,250/-, the loss of income during the laid-up period of
three months, i.e., Rs.30,750/- is to be awarded. He
submits that the compensation awarded under the other
heads, namely medical expenses, pain and suffering, food
and nourishment, attendant charges, travelling expenses
and loss of amenities, is fair, reasonable and proportionate
to the injuries suffered. Hence, on these grounds, learned
counsel for the respondent-claimant that the modified
award is in accordance with law and the appeal does not
merit any further reduction.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
Corporation, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant
and perused the material on record.
10. The accident occurred in the year 2017. As per
the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority for the year 2017, the notional income is required
to be taken at Rs.10,250/- per month. Therefore, the
monthly income of the claimant is taken at Rs.10,250/-
instead of Rs.8,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal.
11. As regards disability, the Tribunal assessed
whole-body disability at 12%, but taken functional disability
at 20%. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained
by the claimant and his avocation, this Court is of the
considered view that functional disability at 15% would
meet the ends of justice. Considering the age of the
petitioner, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '18'.
12. Accordingly, the compensation under the head
loss of future earning capacity is recalculated as under:
Rs.10,250/- × 12 x 18 x 15% = Rs.3,32,100/-
13. The claimant was inpatient for about 14 days and
would have been unable to work for at least three months.
Hence, loss of income during laid-up period is calculated as
under:
Rs.10,250 × 3 months = Rs.30,750/-
14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the other heads, namely medical expenses, pain and
suffering, food and nourishment, attendant charges,
travelling expenses and loss of amenities including loss of
marital prospects, is found to be just and reasonable and is
left unaltered.
15. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimant
is reassessed as under:
Sl. Amount
Head of compensation
No. (Rs.)
1 Loss of future earning capacity 3,32,100
2 Medical expenses 1,374
3 Pain and suffering 35,000
4 Food and nourishment 4,000
5 Attendant charges 3,000
6 Travelling expenses 2,500
7 Loss of income during laid-up period 30,750
Loss of amenities including loss of marital
8 50,000
prospects
Total 4,58,724
16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,58,724/- as against Rs.4,65,474/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The rate of interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization, as awarded
by the Tribunal, is confirmed.
17. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The Judgment and Award dated 09.07.2019
passed in MVC No.636/2018 is modified.
iii) The claimant is entitled to total compensation of
Rs.4,58,724/- as against Rs.4,65,474/- awarded
by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
iv) The appellant-Corporation is directed to deposit
the modified compensation amount, after
adjusting the amount already deposited, within
- 10 -
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
v) The amount in deposit, if any, before this court
shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
vi) On such deposit, the amount shall be disbursed
in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal.
vii) There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MBS,CT:VP
