SMT SHIVAMMA vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101313 OF 2026 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O. BUGEPPA MIRIYAL,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: STATIONARY MATERIAL SELLING
NOW NIL,
R/O. SAGAR NAGAR, KANABARGI,
BELAGAVI- 590015.
…appellant
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NWKSRTC, BELAGAVI- 590001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.2662/2024, ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, BELAGAVI, DATED 12.01.2026, BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12.01.2026
in MVC No.2662/2024 passed by the VI Additional District and
1
Sessions Judge and MACT, Belagavi , the petitioner before the
Tribunal filed this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.05.2024 the
petitioner proceeding in a bus bearing registration No.KA-22/F-
2
2126 from Belagavi bus stand towards Kanbargi. When the
nd
said bus reached near 2 bus stop of Kanbargi village, due to
the high speed, rash and negligent driving of the bus driver,
the bus jumped in the speed beaker and the petitioner who
seated fell down from the seat and sustained injuries. The
petitioner was shifted to the hospital for treatment.
4. The petitioner stated that, prior to the accident, she
was hale and healthy, and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per
1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘the bus’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
month by selling stationary material. Due to the accidental
injuries, it is not possible for her to do the work as earlier and
earn the income. The petitioner spent huge amount towards
medical expenses. Accordingly, filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal claiming compensation.
5. On filing of the petition, notice has been issued to
the respondent/Corporation. The respondent appeared through
counsel and filed the objections denying the contention of the
petitioner and stated that the petitioner by colluding with police
authorities maintained to file the charge sheet against the
driver of the bus. Accordingly, prayed for dismiss the claim
petition.
6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herself examined
as PW1 and doctor examined as PW2 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14. On behalf of respondent one
witness has been examined as RW1. However, the respondent
did not produce any document.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
7. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation under the
following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Pain and agony 40,000/-
2 Inpatient charges 5,000/-
3 Medical expenses 55,474/-
4 Disability 3,68,550/-
5 Food and nourishment 5,000/-
6 Loss of income during laid up 31,500/-
period of the petitioner
Total 5,15,524/-
8. The Tribunal directed the respondent/Corporation
to deposit the compensation amount within three months from
the date of the order with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
9. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
petitioner preferred this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
PW2 doctor assessed the disability to the extent of 15% to the
left shoulder joint and 30% to the lumbo sacral spine but, the
Tribunal assessed the disability to the extent of 15% to the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
whole body which is on the lower side; the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are also inadequate
and the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the petitioner
to the extent of Rs.15,750/-, which is on the lower side.
Accordingly, prays for enhancement of compensation.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation
argued that the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability to the
extent of 15% to the whole body which does not call for any
interference.
12. The respondent has drawn the attention of the
Court to the wound certificates which marked as Exs.P5 and P6
issued by the two different hospitals, wherein it is mentioned
that there is a fracture to L2 vertebra and abrasion on lower
back; PW2/the doctor assessed the disability to the extent of
30% to the whole body is exorbitant and baseless and without
any basis. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?
(ii) What order?
14. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) : As per the final order, for the
following:
15. Regarding Point No.(i): It is an undisputed fact
that the petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident and he
has taken treatment for six days as an inpatient. PW2/the
doctor in his evidence deposed that there is a mal united
th th
fracture and the petitioner complaints of pain in the 8 , 9 and
th
10 ribs in the left side of the chest and in the left shoulder
joint and lumbo sacral spine but, nothing material oral evidence
elicited from PW2 during the cross examination to discard the
evidence of PW2.
16. By looking into the injuries and also fracture
sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
there is a disability. Considering the medical records, it is just
and reasonable to assess the disability to the extent of 20% to
the whole body.
17. The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the
petitioner at Rs.15,750/- per month. The accident occurred in
the year 2024. As per the guidelines issued by the Legal
Service Authority, the monthly income should be taken at
Rs.16,250/-.
18. The petitioner was aged 46 years at the time of
accident. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation
3
and another , the applicable multiplier would be “13” . Thus,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head of
“loss of future income” as under:
Rs.16,250/- X 12 X 13 X 20% = Rs.5,07,000/-
19. On going through the records in detail and
considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the
accident, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and
3
2009 ACJ 1298
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
reasonable to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the
head of “pain and suffering” as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
20. The fracture sustained by the petitioner will come in
the way of her comforts and happiness. Hence, it is just and
reasonable to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the
head of “loss of amenities”.
21. By looking into the fracture sustained by the
petitioner in the accident, this Court is of the opinion that at
least three months time is required for her to recover, during
that period she was not in a position to work and the said loss
should be compensated. Hence, it is just and reasonable to
enhance the compensation from Rs.31,500/- to Rs.50,000/-
under the head of “loss of income during laid up period”.
22. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of
Rs.5,000/- under the head of “food and nourishment”,
Rs.55,474/- under the head of “medical expenses” and
Rs.5,000/- under the head of “inpatient charges”, which does
not call for any interference by this Court.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
23. The petitioner has not produced any documents to
show that future treatment is required. Further the evidence of
the doctor also does not indicate that the petitioner required
future consultation. So, there is no ground to award
compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
Accordingly, compensation is awarded under the following
heads:
Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of future income 5,07,000/-
2 Pain and suffering 50,000/-
3 Loss of amenities 30,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid up 50,000/-
period
5 Food and nourishment 5,000/-
6 Medical expenses 55,474/-
7 Inpatient charges 5,000/-
TOTAL 7,02,474/-
24. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.7,02,474/- as against Rs.5,15,524/-
awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered
partly in the affirmative .
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
25. Point No.(ii) : In view of the findings on point
No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified. The
petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.7,02,474/- as
against Rs.5,15,524/-awarded by the
Tribunal.
(iii) The enhanced compensation amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the
date of payment.
(iv) Respondent/Corporation shall deposit
enhanced compensation with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Draw modified award accordingly.
(vi) Registry to transmit the Trial Court
Records forthwith.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16968
MFA No. 101313 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020068942026
(vii) In view of disposal of this appeal,
pending applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and the same
are accordingly disposed of.
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 03-11-2026