THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs JYOTHI LAXMI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101996 OF 2021 (MV)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100113 OF 2023
IN MFA NO. 101996/2021
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC BUS REG. NO. KA-19 F3342,
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-27.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C.
PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, BENGALURU-27.
…APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date:
2026.10.16
11:53:57
+0530
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI W/O. R. G. RAM KUMAR,
AGED. ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. PETE BEEDI,
RAMANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
NOW R/O UJJAINI, KOTTUR TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583 134.
2. SRI. MARUTHI M. BHAJANTRI
S/O. MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. MADAKARI DEPO,
BEERESHWAR NAGAR, SANKESHWAR TALUK,
HUKKAERI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 313.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT VI AT KUDLIGI IN MVC NO. 1118/2016 DATED
10.02.2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA.CROB NO. 100113/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI W/O R. G. RAM KUMAR
AGE. 45 YEARS,
R/O. PETE BEDI,
RAMNATHAPURA VILLAGE,
HASAN TALUK AND DISTRICT,
NOW R/O. UJJAINI, KOTTUR
TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.
PIN. 583 119
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. G N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
1.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
K. H. ROAD, BANGALORE.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K S R T C PUTTUR DIVISION PUTTUR,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
3. SRI. MARUTI M BHAJANTRI S/O MALLAPPA
AGED. 41 YEARS,
R/O MADAKARI DEPO BEERESHWAR NAGAR
SANKESHWAR TALUK,
HUKKAERI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT 591313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA NO.101996/2023 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT VI KUDLIGI IN MVC NO. 1118/2016 DATED
10.02.2021 BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD AND ALLOW THIS CROSS OBJECTION WITH COST IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants-Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation (for short, ‘the KSRTC’ or ‘Corporation’) have
preferred MFA No.101996/2021 seeking an Order setting
aside the judgment and award dated 10.02.2021 passed in
M.V.C. No.1118/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Kudligi (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) and the Claimant has filed
MFA Crob.No.100113/2023 seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
2. M.V.C. No.1118/2016 has been filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The admitted
facts are that the accident had occurred on 05.12.2015
and in the said accident, claimant suffered injuries.
Considering the above facts, the Tribunal had awarded
compensation by fastening liability on the Corporation, as
detailed below:
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
Sl.
No.
Heads
Amount
1. Towards expenses relating
transportation, nourishing food and
attendant charges
Rs. 93,985/-
2. Towards loss of earning during the Rs. 21,000/-
period of treatment
3. Towards loss of future earning Rs. 88,200/-
capacity
4. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
5. Towards Loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation awarded 2,38,185/-
Rs.
3. Heard both the counsel for KSRTC and the
claimant/cross-objector.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-KSRTC
contended that though the accident occurred on
05.12.2015, the claimant underwent treatment only on
07.12.2015 i.e., two days after the accident, which is
evident from Ex.P6. Even though the claimant has suffered
only simple injuries, PW-2, non-treating doctor issued a
disability certificate/Ex.P44. In the said document, it is
stated that the claimant had suffered permanent disability
of 18–20% to the whole body and 25–30% in respect of
the particular part. It is further argued by the learned
counsel that, as per Ex.P8, the claimant was admitted to
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
hospital on 16.04.2016 and discharged on 24.04.2016 i.e.,
after a lapse of four months from the date of accident and
in the discharge summary, past history is shown as “Nil
Significant”. Hence, it is clear that the claimant has
suffered only simple injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has
erred in considering the disability suffered by the claimant
as 5% and consequently erred in awarding compensation
on the heads of ‘loss of future earning capacity’, and
‘medical expenses’. It is further argued by the learned
counsel that, for the aforesaid reasons, claimant is not
entitled for compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the cross-objector/claimant
contended that Ex.P1 to P49 establish that due to the
accident, claimant suffered injuries and disability. Learned
counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company
1
Vs. Devidas S/o. Malshetty and another , and argued
1
MFA 201313/2018 c/w MFA 201139/2018
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
that since the medical documents and disability certificate
were marked with consent, corporation cannot be allowed
to raise objection with regard to the contents of the said
documents. As per the disability certificate at Ex.P.44, the
claimant has suffered 25 to 30% of disability, but the
Tribunal has wrongly considered the disability as 5%
rd
without taking 1/3 of the disability given at Ex.P.44. Even
Ex.P9 i.e., income certificate, was not considered by the
Tribunal as per which the salary of the claimant was
Rs.8,500/- per month. Considering the above facts, the
compensation under the heads of ‘loss of income’,
‘transportation charges, nourishing food and attendant
charges’, ‘loss of earnings during the period of treatment’,
‘pain and suffering’, and ‘loss of amenities’ have to be
enhanced. Further contention was that the interest fixed
by the Tribunal is on a lower side which has to be
enhanced to 9%.
6. Perused the material available on record.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
7. In order to ascertain the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant and to determine whether the
claimant has suffered any disability, the medical records
and depositions have been given due consideration. In the
case cited by the claimant, documents were marked with
consent, whereas in the present case, they were marked
in the course of evidence of claimant and PW2. Further, on
the said documents, the Corporation has cross-examined
the claimant and elucidated that as per Ex.P6 claimant has
suffered simple injuries and took treatment at Manipal
hospital. However, the claimant has denied the suggestion
that those medical documents are created documents.
Further, the PW2, who has issued Ex. P44, deposed that
he had treated claimant as out-patient and had issued the
disability certificate two years after the accident. However,
the said doctor has not mentioned the dates on which
treatment was given to her. Though it was suggested to
him that the claimant has not suffered disability, he denied
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
it. Therefore, the citation relied upon by the counsel for
the claimant does not apply to the present case.
8. One more important medical document relied
upon by the claimant is Ex.P8, which relates to treatment
taken at Manipal Hospital for a period of 9 days i.e., from
16.04.2016 to 24.04.2016, wherein past history is shown
as “ Nil Significant’ ” and ‘history of present illness’ is shown
as “ h/o RTA 3 months ago, pain over left shoulder with
restricted movements, no fever, wound or other
complaints”.
9. It is relevant to note here the case of
2
Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar and another , wherein Hon’ble
Apex Court discussed in detail the difficulties faced by the
claimants in securing presence of busy surgeons or
treating doctors for giving evidence. Hence, such
circumstances constrain the injured claimants to approach
2
2011 (1) SCC 343
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
the professional certificate givers, whose assessment are
usually found satisfactory.
10. In reference to the above, even if we consider
the evidence of PW2, i.e., the doctor who assessed the
disability suffered by the claimant, the same will not be of
much help to the claimant, for the reason that, in Ex.P8,
under the head ‘further advice on discharge’, it is noted as
“review on 27.04.2016 for admission, surgery on
29.04.2016”. But the documents relating to surgery, if
any, are not produced before the Court. Hence, it is clear
that she has not suffered any disability.
11. Coupled with the above facts, Ex.P9 is the
salary certificate issued by Basaveshwara Educational
Institution, which was issued on 27.07.2016 i.e., a year
after the accident. It is stated in the said certificate that
the claimant was working for a salary of Rs.8,500/- per
month till date. It is relevant to note here that the date of
the accident was 05.12.2015. Hence, it is clear that there
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
was no loss of earning capacity and her income per month
was Rs.8,500/-. Considering the above discussed facts, I
opine that the claimant has not suffered failed to establish
that she had suffered disability. Therefore, she is not
entitled for compensation under the heads of ‘loss of
future earnings’, ‘ t owards expenses relating
transportation, nourishing food and attendant charges’ and
‘loss of amenities’. However, considering the entry at
Ex.P8 noted supra, it can be gathered that she took
treatment till 24.04.2016 i.e., for a period of 4 months 20
days. Hence, loss of income during laid up period and
medical and miscellaneous expenses incurred by her will
have to be considered. Accordingly, the compensation is
reassessed as follows:
Sl.
Heads
No.
Amount
1. Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/-
2. Towards loss of earning during the Rs. 39,667/-
laid up period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 61,385/-
4. Towards Miscellaneous expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 1,36,052/-
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
12. In view of the discussion made supra, claimant
is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,36,052/- as against
Rs.2,38,185/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
13. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
(i) The MFA No.101996/2021 filed by the
appellant-Corporation is allowed in part .
(ii) The MFA Crob.No.100113/2023 filed by
the claimant is dismissed .
(iii) The claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.1,36,052/- as against Rs.2,38,185/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16899
MFA No. 101996 of 2021
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020252962021
(iv) The judgment and decree dated
10.02.2021 in MVC No.1118/2016 passed
by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI,
Kudligi is hereby modified.
(v) The respondent-Corporation shall deposit
the compensation, together with accrued
interest, before the jurisdictional Tribunal
within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
(vi) Registry to draw modified award
accordingly.
Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE
KMS, YAN
CT:CNB
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25