SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 6383

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR.K.MANMADHA RAO
UDAYKUMARSHETTY S/O. GOPALSHETTY – Appellant
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER – Respondent
MFA 101546/2014



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101545 OF 2014 (MV)

C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101546 OF 2014 (MV)

IN MFA NO.101545/2014:

BETWEEN:

ROHANSHETTY S/O. UDAYKUMARSHETTY AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. 3RD CROSS, MRUTHYNJAYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMOGH B. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC HASAN DIVISION, DIST: HASAN MANAGING DIRECTOR.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

D igitally signed by THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO Karnataka, Dharwad Bench MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., RANEBENNUR, DATED 06.07.2013 IN MVC NO.758/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

BETWEEN:

UDAYKUMARSHETTY S/O. GOPALSHETTY AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: RTD. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. MRUTHNJAYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMOGH B. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC HASAN DIVISION, DIST: HASAN MANAGING DIRECTOR.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T., RANEBENNUR, DATED 06.07.2013 IN MVC NO.757/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 30.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by common Judgment and Award dated 06.07.2013 in MVC No.757/2012 and MVC No.758/2012, passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at Ranebennur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

In MVC No.757/2012 (MFA No.101546/2014):

3. On 01.04.2012 at about 10.15 hours, when the petitioner and his son were traveling in a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA13/F-1666 from Ranebennur towards Shimoga as authorized passengers, the driver of the said bus alleged to have driven it in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the motor cycle bearing No.KA-17/I-2507 and lost control over the bus as a result of which the bus toppled down due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga and thereafter, shifted to Om Hospital, Ranebennur and he is said to have taken treatment as an inpatient for two months by spending more than Rs.20,000/- for his treatment and has to spend another Rs.10,000/- for further treatment. It is averred that before the accident he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a retired bank employee, but that due to the impact of the accidental injuries, he is said to have been permanently disabled. The accident in question was alleged to have been occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver and respondent being the employer and self insurer of the said bus, is liable to compensate the petitioner. Hence, petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

together with interest at a rate of 12% p.a.

In MVC No.758/2012 (MFA No.101545/2014):

4. That the petitioner who is said to be the son of the petitioner in MVC No.757/2012 is said to have sustained grievous injuries while he was proceedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top