- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2657 OF 2021(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6785 OF 2021(MV-I) IN MFA No. 2657/2021 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE MUKRUMPADY DARBE POST PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 202 REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RADHA B.P, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by PANKAJA S ASHOK @ ASHOKA G Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS COURT OF S/O G RAMULUKARNATAKA R/AT LINGAPPA GARIPALLI BUKKAPATNAM MANDALAM ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 154 ALSO AT PADIL PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K - 574 202 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 05.02.2021, PASSED IN MVC NO.1690/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, AMACT-XI, D.K. MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,49,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 6785/2021 BETWEEN: ASHOK @ ASHOKA G AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O G RAMALU R/AT LINGAPPA GARIPALLI BUKKAPATNAM, MANDALAM ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH-515 154 NOW R/AT PADIL PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C, DIVISIONAL OFFICE MUKRUMPADY DARBE POST PUTTUR TALUK D.K DISTRICT-574 202 POLICE NO: KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT. ORDER NO:HTDMV: 106/68 ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RADHA B.P, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2021 PASSED - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR IN MVC. NO.1690/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MEMBER AMACT XI D.K.MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT Both the KSRTC and the claimant are in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 05.02.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.1690/2017. While MFA No.2657/2021 is by the KSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation, MFA No.6785/2021 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact that the offending vehicle was insured are not in dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the KSRTC would contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability of the claimant at 16.5% in view of the disability assessed by the Doctor. He would contend that as per the evidence of PW.3, who treated the claimant, the claimant has suffered 33% functional - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR disability of left upper and lower limb. However, the evidence of PW.2, who is not the treated Doctor and who has issued Ex.P14-Disabiility Certificate clearly depicts that the disability suffered at 33% is to the particular limb and not to the whole body. As such, the whole body disability of the claimant should be taken at 1/3rd of 33%, which would be 11%. As such, the same requires interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel would also contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- without any documentary evidence. Since the accident is of the year 2016, the Tribunal would have assessed the income at Rs.9,500/- as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Thus, the same requires interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel would further contend that though the claimant has taken treatment as inpatient for 11 days, the Tribunal has erred in treating the laid up period as 4 months and consequently awarding the compensation towards loss of income during laid up period and also towards incidental charges. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748

MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR 6. Learned counsel would also contend that the sums awarded under other heads being exorbitant, requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal of the KSRTC by dismissing the appeal of the claimant. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the sums awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads are meager and the same requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal of the claimant. 8. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advance by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and documents available on record. 9. As could be gathered from records, the disability assessed by the Doctor, who has issued the disability certificate at 33% to the left upper and lower limb. Since the disability is to the particular limb, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability by taking 1/3rd of the same, which would be 11%. Thus, the disability suffered by the claimant would be 11%. 10. As regards the determination of notional income, since there was no credible and cogent evidence with regard to - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR

the income of the claimant, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income at Rs.10,000/-. Since the accident is of the year 2016, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which would be Rs.9,500/-. 11. As the claimant was aged 24 years, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,25,720/- (9,500 x 12 x 18 x 11%) towards 'loss of future income'. 12. In view of the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, it would be appropriate to take the laid up period as three months instead of four months. Thus, the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.28,500/- (9,500/- X 3). 13. Having regard to the injuries suffered and the lasting effects of the same, I deem it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards 'Special diet, nutrition and attendant charges" as against Rs.18,000/- and a sum of - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR Rs.50,000/- towards "loss of amenities" as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The sums awarded towards "pain and suffering" at Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards "traveling expenses" do not call for modification and hence confirmed.

15. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: As As Compensation under awarded awarded Sl. different Heads by the by this No. Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 1,00,000 2. Loss of future income 3,56,400 2,25,720 Loss of income during the 40,000 28,500 3. laid up period Special diet, nutrition and 18,000 25,000 4. attendant charges 5. Loss of amenities in life 20,000 50,000 6. Travelling expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 5,49,400 4,44,220 16. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,44,220/- as against Rs.5,49,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR 17. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the KSTRC is allowed-in-part and appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2657 OF 2021(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6785 OF 2021(MV-I) IN MFA No. 2657/2021 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE MUKRUMPADY DARBE POST PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 202 REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RADHA B.P, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by PANKAJA S ASHOK @ ASHOKA G Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS COURT OF S/O G RAMULUKARNATAKA R/AT LINGAPPA GARIPALLI BUKKAPATNAM MANDALAM ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 154 ALSO AT PADIL PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K - 574 202 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 05.02.2021, PASSED IN MVC NO.1690/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, AMACT-XI, D.K. MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,49,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 6785/2021 BETWEEN: ASHOK @ ASHOKA G AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O G RAMALU R/AT LINGAPPA GARIPALLI BUKKAPATNAM, MANDALAM ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH-515 154 NOW R/AT PADIL PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C, DIVISIONAL OFFICE MUKRUMPADY DARBE POST PUTTUR TALUK D.K DISTRICT-574 202 POLICE NO: KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT. ORDER NO:HTDMV: 106/68 ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RADHA B.P, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2021 PASSED - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR IN MVC. NO.1690/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MEMBER AMACT XI D.K.MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT Both the KSRTC and the claimant are in appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 05.02.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.1690/2017. While MFA No.2657/2021 is by the KSRTC challenging the quantum of compensation, MFA No.6785/2021 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The fact that the accident occurred and the further fact that the offending vehicle was insured are not in dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the KSRTC would contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability of the claimant at 16.5% in view of the disability assessed by the Doctor. He would contend that as per the evidence of PW.3, who treated the claimant, the claimant has suffered 33% functional - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR disability of left upper and lower limb. However, the evidence of PW.2, who is not the treated Doctor and who has issued Ex.P14-Disabiility Certificate clearly depicts that the disability suffered at 33% is to the particular limb and not to the whole body. As such, the whole body disability of the claimant should be taken at 1/3rd of 33%, which would be 11%. As such, the same requires interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel would also contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- without any documentary evidence. Since the accident is of the year 2016, the Tribunal would have assessed the income at Rs.9,500/- as per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Thus, the same requires interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel would further contend that though the claimant has taken treatment as inpatient for 11 days, the Tribunal has erred in treating the laid up period as 4 months and consequently awarding the compensation towards loss of income during laid up period and also towards incidental charges. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748

MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR 6. Learned counsel would also contend that the sums awarded under other heads being exorbitant, requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal of the KSRTC by dismissing the appeal of the claimant. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the sums awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads are meager and the same requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal of the claimant. 8. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advance by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and documents available on record. 9. As could be gathered from records, the disability assessed by the Doctor, who has issued the disability certificate at 33% to the left upper and lower limb. Since the disability is to the particular limb, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability by taking 1/3rd of the same, which would be 11%. Thus, the disability suffered by the claimant would be 11%. 10. As regards the determination of notional income, since there was no credible and cogent evidence with regard to - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR

the income of the claimant, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income at Rs.10,000/-. Since the accident is of the year 2016, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which would be Rs.9,500/-. 11. As the claimant was aged 24 years, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,25,720/- (9,500 x 12 x 18 x 11%) towards 'loss of future income'. 12. In view of the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, it would be appropriate to take the laid up period as three months instead of four months. Thus, the amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.28,500/- (9,500/- X 3). 13. Having regard to the injuries suffered and the lasting effects of the same, I deem it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards 'Special diet, nutrition and attendant charges" as against Rs.18,000/- and a sum of - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR Rs.50,000/- towards "loss of amenities" as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The sums awarded towards "pain and suffering" at Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards "traveling expenses" do not call for modification and hence confirmed.

15. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: As As Compensation under awarded awarded Sl. different Heads by the by this No. Tribunal Court (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000 1,00,000 2. Loss of future income 3,56,400 2,25,720 Loss of income during the 40,000 28,500 3. laid up period Special diet, nutrition and 18,000 25,000 4. attendant charges 5. Loss of amenities in life 20,000 50,000 6. Travelling expenses 15,000 15,000 Total 5,49,400 4,44,220 16. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,44,220/- as against Rs.5,49,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33748 MFA No. 2657 of 2021 C/W MFA No. 6785 of 2021 HC-KAR 17. The KSRTC is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the KSTRC is allowed-in-part and appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39