Dismissed¶35

The Divisional Manager v. Sri Somashekar K

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2025MFA/8468/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC MFA against MACT Malur award; Section 163-A MV Act claim; permanent disability 27.77% per DGHS-W.H.O-AIIMS neurological impairment guidelines reduced by Tribunal to 25%; competency of doctor's disability assessment; burden on KSRTC to contradict assessment via cross-examination; no enhancement absent claimant's appeal; no grounds to interfere; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

While assessing disability, certain guidelines (for assessment of physical impairment in neurological conditions given by DGHS-W.H.O-AIIMS) have to be followed, and the doctor is the competent person to decide the disability; it was for KSRTC to elicit by cross-examination that the doctor's assessment was contrary to the guidelines, and no such effort was made; hence the Court cannot say the disability is on the higher side without any basis.

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri Somashekar K — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly the permanent disability taken at 25%, is on the higher side and ought to be reduced.

¶28

Court's answer

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Since no appeal was preferred by the claimant, this Court is not going into the said aspect (i.e., the adequacy of the disability percentage adopted by the Tribunal).

¶34

Key takeaways

In view of the above discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award, and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles — Appeal under S.173(1) MV Act by KSRTC against the award dated 20.07.2016 in MVC No.88/2015 (Senior Civil Judge & JMFC/MACT, Malur) granting the claimant Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. for injuries (traumatic brain injury treated by FTP craniotomy and EDH evacuation) suffered in a 16.01.2015 collision between a KSRTC bus and the claimant's motorcycle, compensation computed under Section 163-A with permanent disability taken at 25% although the doctor had certified 27.77% disability as per the guidelines for assessment of physical impairment in neurological conditions given by DGHS-W.H.O-AIIMS. Held: in assessing disability the prescribed guidelines must be followed and the doctor is the competent person to decide the disability; it was for KSRTC to elicit in cross-examination that the doctor's assessment was contrary to the guidelines, and no such effort was made, so the disability could not be held to be on the higher side without any basis; however, the claimant having preferred no appeal, the Court declined to go into the disability percentage; there were no grounds to interfere — appeal dismissed, no costs, amount in deposit to be transmitted to the trial Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9303 MFA No. 8468 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 2016

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER K.S.R.T.C. CHIKKABALLAPUR ROAD KOLAR-563 101 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECOTR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI SOMASHEKAR K., S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NIDARAMANGALA VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DIST-563 101

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. N.GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.88/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MALUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,00,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETTIION TILL PAYMENT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9303 MFA No. 8468 of 2016

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.88/2015 dated 20.07.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT Malur, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimant, the appellant/ KSRTC is before this Court.

¶24

The facts of the case are that the respondent/ claimant had filed the petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that on 16.01.2015 at about 2:15 p.m., the claimant was coming from Chinthamani to Kolar by riding his motor cycle on the correct side of the road. At that time, one KSRTC Bus came from opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and came to the wrong side and dashed against the claimant motor cycle. As a result, the claimant sustained head injuries and immediately, he was shifted to RL Jalappa hospital, Kalur, wherein it is found that he has sustained traumatic brain injury and treated by FTP

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9303 MFA No. 8468 of 2016

¶26

Craniotomy and EDH evacuation. Further, he has taken treatment as inpatient from 16.01.2015 to 28.01.2015. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as a mechanic at Honda Motors Ltd., Narasapura Industrial area, Kolar and he was earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- p.a. and he has spent more than an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, conveyance etc.

¶27

The trial Court had considered the evidence of the doctor who has deposed that the claimant has sustained permanent disability of 27.77%. The trial Court gave a finding that on considering the evidence of the doctor and condition of the claimant who appeared before the Court, the said percentage of disability is on higher side and hence the Court had considered the permanent disability at 25% and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under different heads as per Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ KSRTC submits that the compensation that is awarded, particularly with regard to the permanent disability is on the higher side. When the trial Court had disbelieved the evidence of the doctor,

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9303 MFA No. 8468 of 2016

¶30

the trial Court ought not to have taken disability at 25%. When the claimant is able to take care of his day to day activities and he is continuing his job, the Court ought not to have taken the disability at 25%. He submits that the disability that is considered by the Court is on the higher side and it needs to be reduced.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant submits that when the doctor has given the disability certificate was examined and has come to such conclusion as per the guidelines for assessment of physical impairment in Neurological conditions given by DGHS-W.H.O-AI.I.MS, without any basis the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the percentage of disability is on the higher side and the Court had only taken 25% and the same is not correct. Now, the appeal filed by the KSRTC is saying that the trial Court ought not to have taken disability at 25% cannot be considered and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. When the doctor had given the disability certificate stating that the disability is

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9303 MFA No. 8468 of 2016

¶34

27.77%, as per the guidelines for assessment of physical impairment in Neurological conditions given by DGHS-W.H.OAI.I.MS, the Court simply gave one observation that the disability is little higher sided and reduced the same to 25%. There is no discussion as to how it is on the higher side. When coming to the disability, there are certain guidelines that has to be followed while assessing the same and the doctor is the competent person who can decide about the disability and when he is examined, it is for the KSRTC to elicit by way of cross-examination that the assessment that is made by the doctor is contrary to the guidelines. In this case, no such effort is made. Hence, the Court cannot say that the disability is on the higher side without any basis. As there is no appeal preferred by the claimant, this Court is not going into the said aspect. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere.

¶35