IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101229 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI W/O SUBHASCHANDRA SUBEDAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND ITI STUDENT, R/O. KHANAGAON, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 593107.

NOW R/AT NO. 203, SUMERU APARTMENT, 3^RD CROSS, 34^TH MAIN GATE, DOLLARS SCHEME COLONY, BTM 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-68.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI, ADV)

AND:

1. NWKRTC, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, BY ITS CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-593107.

…RESPONDENT Digitally signed by (BY SRI. I.C. PATIL, ADV.)

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, KARNATAKA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN MVC NO.2501/2018 DATED 01.09.2021 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant/petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated 01.09.2021 passed in MVC No.2501 of 2018 by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. On 19.11.2018, the petitioner was travelling in a NWKRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.23/F-722 from Shankeshwar towards Gokak. When the bus was near Kotabagi on Hukkeri-Ghataprabha raod, to avoid the collision with the motorcycle which had come across the bus, the driver of the bus steered it off the road. As a result, the bus fell into the ditch and the petitioner and the other inmates sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed this claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.

Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The respondent-NWKRTC filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and hence prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

6. The petitioner to substantiate her case examined herself as PW.1, examined three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4 and marked 73 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.73. In rebuttal, the respondent-NWKRTC did not lead any evidence and no documents were produced.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of ₹6,14,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount excluding interest for the period commencing from March 2020 till 31.05.2021 owing to restricted functioning of the court due to COVID-19 pandemic.

8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, filed this appeal.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner examined the doctors as PW.2 and PW.4 who opined that the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 70% whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 15% which is on a lower side. He submitted that the accident is of 2018. The Tribunal has taken the notional income at the rate of ₹9,000/- per month which is on a lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

NWKRTC submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The point tha