IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6243 OF 2022(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K. S. R. T. C. DIVISION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 97.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.119/2, 1^ST CROSS

10^TH MAIN, SHANKARANAGAR BANGALORE – 96.

Digitally signed …RESPONDENT by MEGHA (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

MOHAN Location: THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE HIGH COURT OF JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC KARNATAKA NO.7882/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-22) AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,43,834/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.7882/2018 dated 30.03.2022 by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge & ACMM and MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount Rs.9,43,834/-, the KSRTC is before this Court.

2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. The facts of the case are that on 23.11.2018 at about 7:30 p.m., the claimant was going to his village by riding his motor bike, where he reached Heruru. At that time, a KSRTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner coming from Nittur side dashed against the claimant's motor bike. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/KSRTC submits that when it is the evidence of the doctor that the disability of lower limb is 24%, the Tribunal had taken the functional disability at 24% and granted the compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the doctor.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant submits that the doctor had scientifically done the evaluation and assessed the disability at 24% and there are no grounds to interfere and the Tribunal had rightly granted the compensation considering the evidence of the doctor.

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This Court has perused the order that is passed by the Tribunal and the evidence of PW2 - doctor reveals that he has assessed different components and he is a technical person. It is not for the Tribunal to count all those components and assess the whole body disability and the limb disability. First of all, it is the duty of the doctor to specifically assess the limb disability. Admittedly, in this case, except making the calculation, the doctor has not specifically stated the exact limb disability. When it is not stated by the doctor, this Court is not able to understand why the Tribunal had taken the disability at 24%. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the award and remand the matter back to the Tribunal only to assess the disability by examining the doctor. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the limb disability and what led to functional and whole body disability.

6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the KSRTC is allowed and the order passed in MVC.No.7882/2018 dated 30.03.2022 by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge & ACMM and MACT, Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal.

i. Without further notice, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.10.2025.

ii. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence only with regard to the disability.

iii. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within two months fro