[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs S. Dattatreyya Dane on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
MFA No. 104422 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104422 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
MSRTC, KOLHAPUR DIVISION, KOLHAPUR-416012.
REPRESENTING AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI. ROHAN BHARMUDAS PALANGE,
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KOLHAPUR DIVISION.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ASR NAMAZI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
S DATTATREYYA DANE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YAMAGE, TQ: KAGAL-416216,
DIST: KOLHAPUR.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.11 09:47:09
+0000
AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.2330/2014 BY SR. CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NIPPANI ON 20.12.2018 AND ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
MFA No. 104422 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.12.2018 passed
in MVC no.2330/2014 by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nippani1,
this appeal is filed.
2. Sri ASR Namazi, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by respondent - MSRTC in claim petition
filed by respondent herein. It was submitted, as per claimant
when he was riding motorcycle no.MH-09/BR-7265 at 2:00 p.m.
on 18.03.2014 on NH-4, driver of bus no.MH-14/BT-3099 owned
by MSRTC drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against motorcycle causing accident. It was stated that in
accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries despite taking
treatment at Government Hospital, Nippani and Vasundhara
Nursing Home, Kolhapur, sustained permanent physical disability
and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition
against MSRTC under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. On appearance, MSRTC opposed claim petition, filed
objections opposing claim petition on all grounds including
For short, 'Tribunal'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
HC-KAR
denying negligence of bus driver and alleging total negligence on
part of claimant.
4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW1 and
Dr.Mohan P. Kalekar as PW2 and got marked documents at
Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent did not lead any evidence.
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 from MSRTC as follows:
Sl.No.
Component/Head Amount
Pain and suffering Rs.12,000/-
Medical expenses, future medical Rs.1,91,643/-
expenses, attendants, conveyance
and other expenses
Loss of income during laid up period Rs.18,000/-
Loss of future income Rs.1,08,000/-
Loss of amenities and life comforts Rs.15,000/-
Total amount Rs.3,44,643/-
6. Challenging same, appeal was filed. It was firstly
submitted, Tribunal erred in its finding on negligence when
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
HC-KAR
accident was caused by motorcycle rider. Same was without
proper consideration. It erred in not noticing that motorcycle
rider did not have driving licence.
7. Even on quantum, impugned award calls for
reduction. Tribunal failed to note that disability was assessed by
a doctor who had not treated claimant and even assessment of
disability was excessive. It was further submitted, compensation
awarded under various heads was excessive and called for
reduction. Even rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum was
excessive and prayed for allowing appeal on above grounds.
8. Respondent served and unrepresented. Heard
learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and
certified copies of pleadings, deposition and exhibits furnished by
counsel for appellant.
9. Since, this is an appeal by MSRTC challenging finding
on negligence as well as on quantum, points that would arise for
consideration are:
1) Whether finding of Tribunal fixing entire
negligence on MSRTC Driver is justified?
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
HC-KAR
2) Whether award of compensation calls for
reduction as prayed?
10. Point no.1: At outset, it is seen there is no dispute
about occurrence of accident involving MSRTC bus and
motorcycle on which claimant was riding. While passing
impugned judgment, Tribunal noted reliance of prosecution
records by claimant to establish actionable negligence against
bus driver. It noted Exs.P1 to P3, FIR, complaint and spot
panchanama disclosed that accident had occurred due to fault of
bus driver and MSRTC did not lead contra evidence. It also noted
nothing worthwhile was elicited during cross-examination of PW1
to discredit claimant's version about manner of occurrence of
accident. Thus, it is seen finding of Tribunal is based on
reference to material on record and by assigning reasons. No
case of perversity is made out. Hence, Point no.1 is answered in
affirmative.
11. Point no.2: On quantum, it is seen as on date of
accident, claimant was stated to be 40 years of age earning
Rs.40,000/- per annum as agricultural coolie. Even though there
was no specific evidence, considering daily income of Rs.200/-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
HC-KAR
Tribunal considered Rs.6,000/- as monthly income. When
notional income adopted by this Court for year 2014 is
Rs.7,500/-, said assessment would not call for interference.
12. Further, Ex.P5 - injury certificate, Ex.P6 - discharge
summary and Ex.P11 - disability certificate would indicate,
claimant sustained compound fracture of nasal bone as well as
crush injury on right foot with compound fracture of right ankle,
assessed by PW2 to cause permanent disability of 45% to right
ankle. Same is taken by Tribunal as 10% loss of earning
capacity, which in fact appears more conservative than
excessive. Hence, no interference.
13. When claimant sustained multiple fractures, even
compensation awarded at Rs.12,000/- towards pain and
suffering cannot be stated to be excessive or without basis.
Likewise, award of Rs.1,91,643/- against medical bills,
Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period taking
period of three months as layoff, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
amenities also cannot be stated to be excessive or without basis,
leaving no scope for interference.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3813
HC-KAR
14. Hence, without much ado, Point no.2 is answered in
negative. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for disbursal. All pending
applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29
