Dismissed¶41

Basavarajappa v. Managing Director

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2025MFA/1504/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti J., single judge, decision dated 06.03.2025) dismisses enhancement appeal under S.173(1) MV Act in a KSRTC bus passenger-injury claim (fall from bus due to alleged rash and negligent driving on 20.06.2014; one grievous and four simple injuries; wound certificate and some medical bills produced but no doctor, witness or hospital person examined; claim of Rs.6,00,000/- with stated medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- and monthly income of Rs.6000/-); global Tribunal award of Rs.40,000/- upheld as adequate; no interference called for.

What did the court decide?

Except the wound certificate and some medical bills, no witness, doctor or hospital person was examined; the Tribunal rightly considered and granted the compensation, and the appellant is not entitled to any enhancement. ¶36

Basavarajappa Vs Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9675 MFA No. 1504 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BASAVARAJAPPA,

¶9

S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O HALEKALLU VILLAGE, NOW R/O YEMMAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. CHETHAN D.T, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC SARIGE BHAVAN, SHANTHI NAGARA, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶15

THE CHAIRMAN, INTERNAL SECURITY FUND, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶16

THE DEPOT MANAGER, KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DEPOT, DAVANAGERE.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. Y.G MITHUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:9675 MFA No. 1504 of 2017

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.63/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IV MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Aggrieved by the orders passed in MVC No.63/2015 dated 01.04.2016 by the Court of 1^st Addl. Senior Civil Judge & IV MACT at Chitradurga, the claimant is before this Court.

¶26

The appellant herein has filed claim petition seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. It is his case that on 20.06.2014 at about 4:00 p.m., the appellant and his son boarded the KSRTC bus at Bharamasagara to Halekallu Village. The appellant was sitting on backside seat. Because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the appellant fell down from the back side of the door. He sustained severe

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:9675 MFA No. 1504 of 2017

¶29

injuries and got admitted to Government Hospital and took treatment for one day. Thereafter, he was referred and shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere and took treatment as inpatient

¶30

for 15 days and as per the X-ray, there is a fracture of lateral bone and he has incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and it is his case that he was an agriculturalist and earning Rs.6000/- per month. The Tribunal has observed that he had sustained 4 simple injuries and one grievous injury and also he has spent huge amounts. No document is produced except the self serving testimony. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and treatment taken by the claimant, the Tribunal had awarded global compensation of Rs.40,000/-.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when he has filed the wound certificate to show that he has sustained 1 grievous injury and 4 simple injuries, the Tribunal had granted only an amount of Rs.40,000/- as global compensation which is on the lower side. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that he has spent substantial amounts for the medicines and the treatment and no amount is granted in this regard. The compensation

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:9675 MFA No. 1504 of 2017

¶34

that is awarded by the Tribunal is not a reasonable compensation and that needs to be enhanced.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentsKSRTC submits that except filing the wound certificate and some medical bills, nobody is examined in support of the same and no doctor is examined. It is submitted that considering all these aspects, the Tribunal had rightly granted the global compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/- and no interference is called for the well considered order passed by the Tribunal.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The wound certificate shows that he has sustained one grievous injury and four simple injuries. The Tribunal has rightly observed that except filing the wound certificate and some medical bills, he has not examined anyone, any doctor nor any person from the hospital in support of his case. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal had granted a global compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly considered and granted compensation and the appellant is not

¶37