[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kumar Milan Ajit Patil vs The Divisional Controller on 7 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
MFA No. 100409 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100409 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR MILAN AJIT PATIL
AGE. 22 YEARS,
OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. C/O. S B KUDACHI,
BASTWAD VILLAGE,
TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI 591317.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
THE NWKRTC,
BELAGAVI- 590001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. I.C PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.1996/2019 ON THE FILE
OF THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, DATED 30.11.2021, BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
MFA No. 100409 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
The petitioner dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation filed this appeal challenging the judgment
and award dated 30.11.2021 passed in MVC No. 1996 of
2019 by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, and Additional MACT, Belagavi.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition
are as follows:
3. On 17.07.2019 the petitioner was proceeding in
a Bus, the driver of the Bus drove the bus in rash and
negligent manner. The tyre of the bus bust and hit the
petitioner's leg who was sitting on the top of the tyre. As
the result the petitioner sustained grievous in injuries and
filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Act claiming
the compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the
road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim
petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
HC-KAR
4. The NWKSRTC filed a statement of objections
denying the averments made in the claim petition and
contended that the there is no negligence on the part of
the driver of the bus. It is also contended that the bus was
in good condition. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to
dismiss the claim petition.
5. The similarly placed petitioner also filed a claim
petition in MVC No. 1997 of 2019. Both the claim petitions
were clubbed together and the separate issued were
framed.
6. The petitioner to substantiate his claim,
examined himself as PW1, examined the Doctor as PW3 and
marked 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Conversely,
one witness was examined on behalf of NWKSRTC before
the tribunal.
7. The tribunal, after recording the evidence and
after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence,
allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment and award
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
HC-KAR
dated 30.11.2021 and awarded a compensation of Rs.
5,93,530/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
8. The petitioner dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, filed this miscellaneous first appeal.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned counsel for the NWKSRTC.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower
side. He submits that the doctor has assessed the disability
at 40%, but the tribunal has assessed the disability at 14%
which is not reasonable. He also submits that the
compensation awarded by tribunal on the other heads is
also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, prays to
allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the NWKSRTC
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
HC-KAR
just and proper and do not call for any interference at the
hands of this court. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the
appeal.
12. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The point that would arise for consideration is
regarding the quantum of compensation.
14. It is undisputed that the petitioner met with an
accident on 17.07.2019 and as the result, sustained
grievous injuries. The accident has occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. The petitioner
to prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus produced a charge
sheet marked as Ex.P6.
15. The tribunal was justified in answering Issue No.
1 by recording a finding that the accident had occurred due
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
HC-KAR
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
NWKSRTC Bus.
Regarding the quantum of compensation:
16. It is undisputed that the petitioner was aged
about 16 years as of the date of the accident and the
accident is of 2019. It is contended that the petitioner has
lost his earning capacity. In the absence of the income
proof the notional income has to be assessed as per the
schedule issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority. As per the schedule issued by the KSLSA, this
court assesses the notional income at Rs. 13,250/-. The
multiplier applicable to the age of the petitioner is '18' as
per the proposition of law laid down in the case of SARLA
VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121.
17. The Doctor has assessed the disability of the
petitioner at 40%, however, the tribunal has assessed the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
HC-KAR
disability at 14%. This court considering the materials on
record re-assesses the disability at 20%. In the light of the
above, this court reassesses the compensation as follows:
Sl. PARTICULARS COMPENSATION
No. AWARDED BY
THIS COURT
(Rs.)
1 Pain and sufferings 60,000
2 Medical expenses 1,07,850
3 Loss of future earning capacity 5,72,400
(13,250 x 12 x 18 x 20%)
4 Loss of earning during laid up period 26,500
(13,250 x 2)
5 Conveyance, attendant charges and 20,000
nourishment
6 Loss of amenities 40,000
TOTAL 8,26,750
Compensation awarded by the 5,93,350
Tribunal
Enhanced compensation 2,33,400
18. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.8,26,750/- as against Rs.5,93,350/-,
awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,33,400/-. For
the foregoing, the point regarding the quantum is answered
accordingly.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
HC-KAR
19. In view of the discussion, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is hereby modified.
iii) The petitioner is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.8,26,750/- as against
Rs.5,93,350/-, awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,33,400/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
the petition till its deposit.
iv) The NWKSRTC is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued
interest within 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3659
HC-KAR
v) The Tribunal records, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT: BSB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
