Partly allowed

Divisional Controller v. Sanjay Kumar

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026MFA/8799/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC appealed a motor accident compensation award and the injured claimant sought enhancement. The High Court upheld the finding of the bus driver's negligence, reassessed notional income and disability, recomputed compensation at Rs.2,47,441 after deducting Rs.1,45,832 already paid by the Corporation, and allowed both appeals in part.

What did the court decide?

Award modified: claimant entitled to Rs.2,47,441 with 6% interest after deducting Rs.1,45,832 paid by Corporation; deposit within six weeks; full release to claimant.

Divisional Controller Vs Sanjay Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8799/2019 (MV-I)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.57/2020 (MV-I)

¶9

IN M.F.A. No.8799/2019:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPTD., BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL HEAD OFFICE K.H.ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY MS. MEGHA M.S. ADV.,) AND: SANJAY KUMAR S/O SWAMYGOWDA AGED 22 YEARS R/AT KARAPURA VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI N. BELTHOOR POST H.D. KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 114. …RESPONDENT (BY MRS. SUMA KEDILAYA, ADV., FOR MR. V. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA, ADV.,)

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 22.04.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1240/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶16

IN M.F.A. CROB NO. 57/2020:

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

SRI. SANJAYKUMAR S/O SWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI N BELTHOOR POST H D KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571125.

¶19

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶20

(BY MRS. SUMA KEDILAYA, ADV., FOR MR. PADMANABHA KEDILAYA V, ADV.,)

¶21

AND:

¶22

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, CORPORATION RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP MYSURU-570015.

¶23

...RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY MS. MEGHA M.S. ADV., FOR MR. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.,)

¶25

THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA.NO.8799/2019 IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W. SEC. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 22.04.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1240/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS M.F.A. CONNECTED WITH M.F.A. CROB. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

MFA No.8799/2019 is filed by the appellantcorporation challenging the quantum of compensation as well as fastening of entire liability on it and MFA Crob.No.57/2020 is filed by appellant-claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation. Both the appeal as well as the cross objection are arising out of the judgment and award dated 22.04.2019 passed in MVC No.1240/2016 on the file of Judge, Principal Court of Small Causes and Senior Civil Jude and MACT, Mysuru, (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶32

Smt.Megha M.S., learned counsel for Sri.Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the appellantCorporation submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in recording the finding with regard to negligence of the driver of the bus by ignoring the spot sketch Ex.P4 and the oral testimony of RW-1, driver of

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

bus, which makes it clear that the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, joined the main road and to avoid hitting the bus to him, the driver of the bus took right side and dashed to the tree on the side of the road, which resulted in the accident. It is further submitted that Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the rider, owner and the insurer of the motorcycle were not arrayed as a party before the Tribunal and on this ground alone, the claim petition ought to have been rejected. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has not considered deducting Rs.95,830/- paid by the appellant-corporation to the claimant-injured during the treatment and it has also paid Rs.50,000/- as interim compensation. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal by saddling 50% liability on the rider of the motorcycle by allowing the appeal filed by the Corporation.

¶36

Per contra, Smt.Suma Kedilaya, learned counsel

¶37

for Sri.Padmanabha Kedilaya V., learned counsel for the cross objector-claimant supports the impugned judgment

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

and award of the Tribunal insofar as the finding with regard to the aspect of negligence, however, she submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the oral testimony of PWs-1 to 3 and other medical records which has resulted in awarding meager global competition of Rs.3,50,000/- which is required to be re-assessed by assessing the income and disability of the injured by allowing the cross-objection of the claimant. Hence, she seeks to allow the cross-objection by dismissing the appeal of the corporation.

¶41

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶42

counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶43

The only point that would arise for

¶44

consideration in this appeal is :

¶45

" Whether the judgment and award passed by

¶46

the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The material on record indicates that on

¶50

19.01.2016, the claimant-injured was proceeding in the KSRTC bus bearing registration number KA-09-F-4199 from Mysuru to H.D.Kote. When the bus reached near Kanchamalli gate, at the time, the driver of the bus drove

¶51

the same in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the on coming motorbike and thereafter dashed against the tree, resulting in the claimant sustaining grievous injuries. The claimant was provided initial treatment at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru, and then shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysuru. The records indicate that the claimant was studying in II PUC and he had a bright future of getting a good job and salary, but due to the accidental injuries, he suffered disablement, which affected his employment and future prospects. The Tribunal, on examining the evidence, awarded global compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest rate at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is to be noticed that the Tribunal while

¶55

answering the issue No.1, recorded a clear finding that the accident is caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. It is the primary contention of the appellantcorporation that RW-1, in his deposition, has clearly spoken with regard to the aspect of the rider of the motorcycle entering to the main road without due care and caution and to avoid hitting him, he took the bus to the extreme right, which resulted in dashing the bus to the standing tree and this aspect is not considered by the Tribunal. It is to be noticed that the evidence of RW-1 runs contrary to the investigation papers and records. Admittedly, the jurisdictional police, after investigation, filed a charge against the driver of the bus for negligence and causing the accident. The appellant-Corporation has not examined any independent witness to substantiate the fact that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent and has also contributed to the accident. In the absence of any independent evidence on record, in my considered view,

¶56

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

the Tribunal is fully justified in recording the finding that the driver of the bus was negligent and caused the accident.

¶59

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor-PW2 and awarded global compensation instead of awarding compensation under the head of loss of income due to disability and other heads. It is not in dispute that the injured-claimant was aged about 18 years at the time of accident and no proof of income was placed before the Tribunal, hence, the income of the injured-claimant is notionally assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 18.

¶60

The perusal of the oral testimony of PW2 and other medical records indicate that the injured-claimant was diagnosed with the injury to right elbow and right forearm with posterior dislocation of right elbow (type 3C)

¶61

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

with chip fracture lateral epiclondyle with radical nerve injury. PW1 in his evidence has clearly stated that the injured-claimant was hospitalized for 42 days and he has provided treatment for more than 40 days as an outpatient. The said witnesses also made observation with regard to the difficulty faced by the claimant with regard to carrying out his regular activities and assessed the disability at 39% to the limb. Considering the said evidence of PW2, who is a treating doctor, and also considering wound certificate at Ex.P6, discharge summary at Ex.P9, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the disability of the injured is assessed at 10% to the whole body. Hence, the claimantinjured is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability would be :

¶64

Rs.9,500 x 12 x 18 x 10% = Rs.2,05,200 /-.

¶65

Having re-assessed the income and disability of the claimant-injured and taking note of the fact that the claimant-injured was provided treatment initially at

¶66

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

K.R.Hospital and thereafter shifted to JSS Hospital,

¶69

Mysuru, and was inpatient for more than 40 days and considering the aforesaid injuries suffered and the evidence of the Doctor-PW2, the claimant-injured is entitled to modified compensation as under:

¶70

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Loss of future income due to disability	2,05,200
Pain & suffering	50,000
Loss of amenities	40,000
Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.9500 x 4)	38,000
Medical bills	35,073
Food, nourishment and attendant charges	25,000
Total	3,93,273

¶71

Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation is

¶72

right in submitting that the Tribunal has erred in not deducting the payments made by the Corporation. It is an admitted fact that the Corporation has paid a sum of Rs.95,832/- towards the medical bills and also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance compensation amount, in total

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Rs.1,45,832/- , which is required to be deducted from the total compensation.

¶77

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to

¶78

a total compensation of Rs.2,47,441/- (Rs.3,93,273 - Rs.1,45,832/-), as against Rs.3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶79

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶80

following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

a) Both the appeal and the cross objections are allowed in part .

¶83

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant-injured would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,47,441/- as against Rs.3,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶84

c) The modified compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:14395 M.F.A. No.8799/2019 C/W M.F.A. CROB No.57/2020

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

d) The Corporation shall deposit the modified compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶89

e) The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimant-injured.

¶90

f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶91

g) Registry shall draw the modified award accordingly.

¶92

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶93

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Divisional Controller v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Controller v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Geetha Vs Smt Saritha

Sri Kishore T Vs the Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S Religare Finvest Limited Vs M/S Akshara International School

Sri. Basavaraj.G Vs Sri. Gangadharappa M

Sri Vinayak M K Vs the Managing Director

Sri. Venkatesh Vs the Managing Director