Shri.Malhari Babu Punajiche Vs the M.S.R.T.C.Mumbai

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100937 OF 2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. MALHARI BABU PUNAJICHE, AGE : 64 YEARS, OCC : SECURITY and AGRICULTURIST, NOW NIL, R/O : UCHANGAON-591128 TQ : DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE M.S.R.T.C.MUMBAI THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OFFICE, KOLHAPUR DIVISION, KOLHAPUR-416001.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. A.S.R. NAMAZI AND SRI. AHMAD ALI RAHIMAN SHAH, ADV.S FOR R1; SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.2240/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER OF ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AT: BELAGAVI, DATED 17.01.2020 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This Appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge and Member Additional MACT, Belagavi vide judgment and award dated 17.01.2020 passed in MVC No.2240/2018.

¶25

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶26

On 11.09.2018, the petitioner was driving the car bearing registration No.KA.22/Z.5745 at a moderate speed. At that time, near the accident spot, one bus bearing registration No.MH.20/BL.1216 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a reckless speed and dashed to the car of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

MSRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and that the driver of the bus possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the MSRTC

¶30

The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶31

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶32

The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. In rebuttal, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. The insurance company marked the insurance policy as Ex.R-1.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and

¶36

documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 17.01.2020 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation and directed the MSRTC to deposit the compensation amount and dismissed the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶37

The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶38

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the MSRTC and the insurance company.

¶39

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner examined the doctor, and he has opined that the petitioner has suffered a disability to the extent of 45% whereas the Tribunal has taken the disability at 12% which is on the lower side. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation only under the head of loss of future earnings, as the compensation awarded under the other heads is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶43

Learned counsel for MSRTC submits that the petitioner was aged and was solely responsible for the cause of the accident. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

Perused the records and considered the

¶45

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

14. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident, and the accident having occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner produced a charge sheet at EX.P-7, which is filed against the driver of the bus.

¶50

As fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that he seeks enhancement only under the head loss of future income, this Court re-assesses the compensation only under the said head.

¶51

The petitioner to prove the disability, examined the doctor as PW.2, who has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 45% whereas the Tribunal has taken the disability at 12% which is on the lower side. This Court reassesses the disability at 18%. The accident occurred in 2018 and the notional income of Rs.11,750/- is taken as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner was aged about 65 years old and the multiplier applicable to the

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

age group of the petitioner is 7. The petitioner is entitled to compensation under the head loss of future income at Rs.1,77,660/- (11,750x12x7x18%) as against Rs.80,640/awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the re-assessed compensation

¶55

is as follows.

¶56

Sl. No .	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.	Compensation re-assessed by this Court Rs.
1	Pain and suffering	50,000/-	50,000/-
2	Loss of income during laid up period	24,000/-	(11,750x3) 35,250/-
3	Loss of future income (11,750x12x7x18%)	80,640/-	1,77,660/-
4	Loss of happiness and future amenities	25,000/-	25,000/-
5	Medical expenses	10,000/-	10,000/-
6	Incidental expenses	10,000/-	10,000/-
	TOTAL	1,99,640/-	3,07,910/-

¶57

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,07,910/- as against Rs.1,99,640/awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 108,270/-. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12902 MFA No. 100937 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The Appeal is allowed.

¶63

ii. The judgment and award dated 17.01.2020 passed in MVC No.2240/2018 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Belagavi, is hereby modified.

¶64

iii. The petitioner is entitled to enhanced

¶65

compensation of Rs. 1,08,270/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.

¶66

iv. MSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶67