Partly allowed

Mr Manu S C @ Mohana v. Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2026MFA.CROB/172/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, Karnataka, in cross appeals challenging a motor accident compensation award, enhanced disability from 5% to 12%, increased total compensation from Rs.1.52 lakh to Rs.3.62 lakhs, and reduced interest from 9% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.3,62,740/-; Disability assessed at 12%; Interest reduced to 6% p.a.; KSRTC directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Mr Manu S C @ Mohana Vs Divisional Controller — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1250 OF 2020(MV-I)

¶8

C/W

¶9

MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 172 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶10

IN MFA No. 1250/2020

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201 (OWNER OF K.S.R.T.C. BUS NO.KA-09-F-4186) REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MANU S.C @ MOHANA S/O CHANRAPPA @ CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SANENAHALLI VILLAGE HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115 PRESENT ADDRESS NO.160, L.I.G.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶21

9^TH CROSS, HOUSING BOARD COLONY HASSAN-573 201

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 17.08.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1367/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,52,000/-, WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9 PERCENT P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION INCLUDING INTERIM COMPENSATION IF ANY AWARDED.

¶25

IN MFA.CROB NO. 172/2022

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

MR MANU S.C @ MOHANA S/O CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS SANEHALI VILLAGE HALEBEEDU HOBI, BELUR TALUK PRESENT ADDRESS: #160, LIG, 9^TH CROSS, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HASSAN

¶28

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶29

(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶36

¶37

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶38

THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1367/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CALIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

While MFA.No.1250/2022 is by the KSRTC challenging saddling of liability on it, as well as on the quantum of compensation, MFA.No.172/2022 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated 17.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.1367/2017.

¶43

The occurrence of the accident and the injuries suffered by the claimant due to said accident are not in dispute.

¶44

The brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., while the claimant was travelling in the K.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg. No.K.A-09-F-4186 to go to Sanenahally village and when their bus approached near tank bund of Sanenahally village, Halebeedu Hobli, the driver of the

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶48

said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and as a result of which, the said bus turtled on the left side of the tank bund resulting into accident. Due to which, the claimant along with 35 to 40 inmates of bus sustained injuries. Pursuant to the same, the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the bus.

¶49

For the injuries suffered, the claimant filed a claim petition in MVC.No.1367/2017 and the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,52,400/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and the liability, KSRTC is before this Court in MFA.No.1250/2020. However, aggrieved by the same and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant is before this Court in MFA.Crob.No.172/2022.

¶50

Learned counsel for the KSRTC primarily would contend that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 5% to the whole body as the injury suffered by the claimant was a compression fracture of T12 vertebra, which has already been united as per the evidence of the doctor. He would further contend that the sums awarded under different heads are exorbitant and even the award of interest at 9% p.a. Hence, he

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶53

¶54

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶55

prays to set aside the impugned judgment and allow their appeal.

¶56

Per Contra, the learned counsel for the claimant - Cross Objector contended that the Tribunal has erred while assessing the disability suffered by the claimant since the claimant has suffered fracture of T12 vertebra. He has also awarded meagre sums under the different heads of compensation. Therefore, he prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶57

The Tribunal, on assessment of evidence, has awarded

¶58

the following sums as compensation:

¶59

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	20,000
2.	Loss of future income	86,400
3.	Medical expenses	23,000
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	8,000
5.	Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges	5,000
6.	Loss of amenities in life	10,000
	Total	1,52,400

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

- 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶62

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶63

The Tribunal, on an analysis of the medical evidence, has concluded that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 5% to the whole body.

¶64

I have perused the evidence of the Doctor - PW 2 and the wound certificate. The same depicts that the claimant has suffered a compression fracture of T12 vertebra.

¶65

The Doctor has assessed 20% disability in respect of compression fracture of spine and 5% to the whole body. However, having regard to the injury suffered by the claimant i.e., fracture of T12 vertebra, which is grievous in nature, I deem it just and appropriate to asses the disability at 12%. Accordingly, the disability suffered by the claimant would be at 12% .

¶66

The Tribunal has determined the monthly income, notionally at Rs.8,000/-. Since there is no credible documentary evidence to ascertain the actual monthly income, it would be appropriate and prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services

¶67

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶70

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶71

Authority, which, for the accident of the year 2016, would be Rs.9,500/.

¶72

As the claimant was aged about 19 years, a multiplier of '18' would have to be applied. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,46,240/- (Rs.9,500 x 12 x 18 x 12%) towards 'loss of future income'.

¶73

As a consequence, the amount of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' would also stand enhanced to Rs.28,500/-, considering the laid up period as three months (R s.9,500 x 3 months).

¶74

Having regard to the injuries suffered and having regard to the lasting effects of the same on the claimant, I deem it just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.20,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, as against Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal

¶75

Having regard to the length of stay of the claimant in the hospital, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/ , which is just and proper and hence affirmed.

¶76

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶79

The sum of Rs.23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, being based on documentary evidence, is affirmed.

¶80

Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified and

¶81

the claimant would be entitled to the following compensation:

¶82

Sl. No.	Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal	As awarded by this Court
		(Rs.)	(Rs.)
1.	Pain and sufferings	20,000	40,000
2.	Loss of future income	86,400	2,46,240
3.	Medical expenses	23,000	23,000
4.	Loss of income during the laid up period	8,000	28,500
5.	Conveyance, food, nourishment, attendant charges	5,000	5,000
6.	Loss of amenities in life	10,000	20,000
	Total	1,52,400	3,62,740

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:37881 MFA No. 1250 of 2020 C/W MFA.CROB No. 172 of 2022

¶85

¶86

CNR: KAHC010009232020

¶87

Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,62,740/- as against Rs.1,52,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶88

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.

¶89

The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.

¶90

Accordingly the appeal of the KSRTC and the Cross

¶91

Objection of the claimant are allowed in part .

¶92

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶93

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Mr Manu S C @ Mohana v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manu S C @ Mohana v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Arun K @ Arunkumar Vs Sri. Manjunath Reddy K

Shankare Gowda Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

The Managing Director Vs Shivanna

Sri Murli Vs the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Ksrtc)

Divisional Controller Vs Manu S C @ Mohana

Manager Vs Rangaswamy