DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC vs SMT B J SHANTHAKUMARI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6597 / 2024 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 20 OF 2025 (MV-I)

IN MFA NO. 6597/2024:

BETWEEN:


1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC
PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA
NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC
BENGALURU CENTRAL OFFICE
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
DOUBLE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. B.J. SHANTHAKUMARI
W/O R. PRATHAP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT BHUVANAGIRI
KUSHALNAGAR
KODAGU-573116.

2. T NATESH
MAJOR
KSRTC BUS DRIVER
R/AT VIDYANAGAR
KUSHALNAGAR, MADIKERI













Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



KODAGU-573 116.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 15.01.2025, NOTICE TO
R2 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.03.2024 PASSED IN
MVC NO.99/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, KODAGU, AT MADIKERI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.16,88,711/- WITH
INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA.CROB NO. 20/2025:

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. B.J. SHANTHAKUMARI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WIFE OF R. PRATHAP KUMAR,
RESIDING AT BHUVANAGIRI,
KUSHALANAGAR-571 234,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. T. NATESH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
KSRTC BUS DRIVER,
RESIDENT OF VIDYANAGAR,
MADIKERI-571 201,
KODAGU DISTRICT.


2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KSRTC, PUTTUR DIVISION,
PUTTUR-574 201,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



DAKSHINA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 07.07.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE
22(1) OF THE CPC, 1908 READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 07.03.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.99/2022
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MACT, KODAGU, MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CALIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL AND MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

MFA No.6597/2024 is filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) by the
appellant/respondent No.2-KSRTC, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and
award dated 07.03.2024 in MVC No. 99/2022 on the file of
the I Additional District Judge & MACT, Kodagu at Madikeri
(in short, ‘the Tribunal’).
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024




2. MFA CROB No.20/2025 is filed by the claimant
not satisfied with the compensation awarded in the
aforesaid case.

3. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience and clarity.

4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal in
nutshell is that on 25.02.2022 at 07:40 a.m. when she
was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-19/F-3242
near Kaman gate near Madikeri-Mysuru highway, the rear
tyre of the bus suddenly exploded and burst and because
of that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and hence,
undertook treatment in District Hospital, Madikeri from
25.02.2022 to 02.03.2022. The claimant is working as a
qualified staff Nurse at KIMS, Madikeri and getting salary
of ` 25,000/- per month, thus claiming compensation from
the respondents, who are the driver and the KSRTC.

5. After framing issues, recording evidence and
hearing arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



that the claimant has suffered injuries in the road traffic
accident and thus, entitled for compensation of
` 16,88,711/- under the following heads:
Sl.
Particulars Amount
No.
Towards pain and suffering & loss of
1 ` 3,00,000/-
amenities in life
2 Towards medical expenses ` 775/-
` 10,000/-
3 Towards conveyance
4 Towards Boarding and Lodging charges ` 10,000/-
Towards Food, nourishment and
5 ` 20,000/-
attendant charges
Towards loss of future earning capacity
9,99,936/-
6 `
due to permanent disability
Towards loss of earning during laid off
7 ` 2,48,000/-
period
Towards Attendant expenses for present
8 ` 1,00,000/-
and future
` 16,88,711/-
Total compensation amount


6. Challenging the said quantum, the KSRTC is
before this Court and not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimant is before this Court in the
Cross-Objection.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant
Sri S Rajashekar would submit that the cross-examination
of the claimant establishes that she continued her job in
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



the hospital and getting the same salary as she was
earning before the accident. Thus, there is no functional
disability to the claimant. The tribunal has added 40%
future prospects to the income of the claimant, which is
not required in the case of present nature as the claimant
continued her job. Furthermore, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal on all other heads is excessive.

9. The learned counsel for the claimant
Sri Jagadish Baliga would submit that as per the evidence
of the doctor, there is 45% disability to two limbs i.e. to
both legs and the claimant is not in a position to work as
she was working earlier and the disability would become
more by the lapse of time. Hence, the disability of the
claimant shall be taken at 45% and not 15%. The job of
the claimant was not permanent. She got appointment
only on contract basis. Hence, prayed for enhancement of
the compensation.

Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024




10. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the appeal papers and the trial Court records, the point
that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal requires modification?"


11. Finding of this Court is in Affirmative for the
following:
REASONS

12. The facts established before the trial Court are
that the claimant was the inmate of KSRTC bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-19/F-3242 on the date of road traffic accident
and because of the accident, she sustained Bilateral
fracture of Talus of both legs and Medial Malleolus fracture
of feet procedure. She was admitted to the hospital on
25.02.2022 and discharged on 02.03.2022. The claimant
was working as Staff Nurse in KIMS Hospital, Madikeri,
wherein she has taken treatment as inpatient. Her
appointment order as per Ex.P.9 establishes that her job
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



was on contract basis and was getting salary of ` 25,000/-,
which includes ` 200/- professional tax. The disability
Certificate is also issued by the same hospital as per
Ex.P.11. The evidence of PW.1 establishes that she was
inpatient in the hospital only for 6 days. She admitted in
her cross-examination that even now she continued her
job in the same hospital and getting the same salary. She
has deposed that she took rest for 10 months, but
document is not produced in that regard.


13. PW.2 in his evidence has stated that before the
accident, the claimant was working in their hospital but
now she is not coming to the hospital. However, in the
cross-examination he admitted that he is not having any
document to show that she is not attending the hospital
and he is not having any information on that point.
According to him, the injury is Grade-4-injury type 4 Haw
kins-Talus fracture and it is grievous in nature and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



because of that the blood circulation at Talus bone would
stop and that would increase the disability in future.


14. Considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the
Tribunal held that the claimant continued her job. Even
then, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at
` 24,800/- per month and added 40% future prospects to it
and assessed the disability at 15%.


15. As per the evidence of PW.1, she is working
directly under the Medical Dean and her appointment is
based on contract basis. Ex.P.9 also speaks the same.
Under these circumstances, the job of the claimant is not
permanent. The doctor has not deposed that she requires
rest for 10 months. But it is only the claimant has deposed
that she has taken rest for 10 months. But she has not
produced any document to prove that she has taken rest
for 10 months and started going to the job only 10 months
after the accident. Hence, the compensation awarded
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



under the head 'loss of earning during laid-up period' at 10
months of salary is exorbitant.


16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation
towards 'attendant charges' at ` 1,00,000/-. However, the
claimant is attending her job and she does not require any
attendant. Hence, 'attendant charges' at 1,00,000/- for
`
present and future is exorbitant. The Tribunal has further
awarded compensation towards conveyance at ` 10,000/-.
The compensation awarded under the head 'pain and
sufferings' & 'loss of amenities in life' is also on higher
side. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
to be modified completely.


17. In the evidence, the doctor deposed that there
is Medial Malleolus fracture of both legs, Type-4 Haw kins-
Talus fracture. The doctor has not produced the document
to support that the fracture is of Type-4 Haw kins to the
claimant. The X-ray or any other relevant document is not
produced to substantiate the aforesaid contention. As per
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024



the evidence of the claimant she continued her job. There
is no such diagnosis in the wound certificate and discharge
summary.


18. Thus, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at
15% is proper. However, adding future prospects at 40%
is not correct. Hence, towards 'loss of future earning
capacity due to disability', the claimant is entitled to
`7, `7,14,240 `7, `7, 14,240 14,240/- (`24,800/- x 12 x 16 x 15%). 14,240


19. The claimant is entitled to ` 50,000/- towards
'pain and suffering' ; towards 'loss of amenities',
` 50,000/- and towards 'medical expenses' to ` 775/- as
per the bills produced by the claimant. Towards
'conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges',
` 20,000/- and towards 'loss of income during laid-up
period' ` 99,200/- ( ` 24,800/- x 4).

Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024




20. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of ` 9,34,215/- instead of ` 16,88,711/-

awarded by the tribunal under the following heads:
Sl.
No. Particulars Amount
Towards loss of future earning capacity
1 due to disability. ` 7,14,240/-
2 Towards pain and suffering. ` 50,000/-
3 Towards loss of amenities. ` 50,000/-
4 Towards medical expenses. ` 775/-
Towards conveyance, food, nourishment
5 and attendant charges. ` 20,000/-
Towards loss of income during laid-up
6 period ` 99,200/-
Total compensation ` 9,34,215/-


21. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER

a. MFA No.6597 of 2024 filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is
allowed in part ;

b. MFA.CROB No.20/2025 filed by the claimant
is dismissed;
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60275
MFA No. 6597 of 2024
C/W MFA.CROB No. 20 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010574732024




c. The claimant is entitled for compensation of
` 9,34,215/- instead of ` 16,88,711/- as
awarded by the Tribunal ;

d. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9%
which is exorbitant. Always bank rate of
interest is to be awarded. Hence, claimant is
entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of petition till date of realization;

e. No order as to costs;

f. Draw modified award accordingly;

g. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the
Tribunal;

h. Registry to transmit TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA

(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE

SPV
CT:SM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21