Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18813
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P Sree Sudha, J
Managing Director, KSRTC – Appellant
Versus
Mallikarjuna R N – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2910 of 2024 | Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 612 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dabali Fakkirappa Shidramappa, Naik Krishna Venkatraman
For the Respondents: Naik Krishna Venkatraman, Dabali Fakkirappa Shidramappa
The burden of proving contributory negligence in a motor accident case rests upon the party asserting it, and failure to provide empirical evidence to support such claims renders the defense ineffective. Furthermore, disability assessments by competent medical professionals are binding for calculating just compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Negligence - Contributory negligence - Burden of proof - It is for the Transport Corporation to plead and prove contributory negligence - If the Corporation fails to substantiate its version with evidence and documents, the plea for contributory negligence cannot be sustained. (Para 10)
(B) Compensation - Assessment of disability - Amputation - Where a claimant suffers from amputation, assessment of disability by an orthopedic surgeon is reasonable and the claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity, including future prospects at the applicable rate (40%) since the disability exceeds 25%. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, an agricultural laborer, met with an accident involving a bus and sustained grievous injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm above the elbow. He filed a claim seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,92,000/-. Both the KSRTC (seeking to set aside the award on grounds of negligence) and the claimant (seeking enhancement of compensation) filed appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court rejected the KSRTC's claim of contributory negligence as they failed to produce cogent evidence or prove their allegations. It upheld the disability assessment of 85% and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 43,38,780/- including future medical expenses and loss of future earnings.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of liability (contributory negligence) and the adequacy of the compensation awarded for the permanent disability sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving contributory negligence rests squarely on the party alleging it. In the absence of proof, the finding of negligence against the bus driver remains undisturbed. Furthermore, medical disability assessment consistent with the injuries, coupled with the application of standard future prospects based on age and disability percentage, necessitates the enhancement of compensation to reflect fair and just restitution.
Result: Claimant's appeal allowed in part; KSRTC's appeal dismissed; compensation enhanced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and factual allegations regarding the accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appeals for enhancement and rebuttals of negligence findings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court evaluation of contributory negligence, medical disability, and calculation of compensation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. final award of compensation based on the judicial determination. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
IN MFA No. 2910/2024:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE
SHANTHINAGAR, K H ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI MALLIKARJUNA R N
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A AND POST RAMANAHALLI
TIPTUR TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-572 217.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 3555/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-10), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 15,92,000/- WIT INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO. 612/2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R.N.
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT RAMANAHALLI,
AT POST TIPTUR TALUK,TUMKUR
KARNATAKA-572 217.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTHINAGAR, K.H ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DABALI FAKKIRAPPA SHIDRAMAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.3555/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SCJ ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-10, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
MFA No.2910/2024 is filed by Managing Director of KSRTC, Central Office and MFA No.612/2024 is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 03.10.2023 passed by the XIV Additional Small Causes Judge, ACMM and Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.3555 of 2022.
2. The injured claimant, aged 29 years, met with an accident on 31.05.2022, and filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.15,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, MFA No.2910/2024 is preferred by the KSRTC in which it is mainly contended that claimant was riding the motorcycle along with Mallikarjun as a pillion rider from Honnavalli towards Bidaregudi Road. While the bus was going ahead of him, he gave horn/sign to overtake the bus. As the bus was moved towards left side, he was overtaking the bus. But the driver took the bus towards right side and front side of the bus touched to the motorcycle. As a result, both of them fell down. Front wheel of the bus ran over on his left hand. Pillion rider has not sustained any injuries. But he gave complaint on the next day stating the manner of accident. Exhibit P8 is the charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus. As per Exhibit P17 - IMV report of the of the motorcycle and Exhibit R10-photos, no major damages sustained to the motorcycle. Driver of the bus was examined as RW1 and he stated that after boarding the passengers in Hornavalli bus stop, he was moving the bus slowly, and rider of the motor cycle along with pillion rider came in the same direction in a high speed in rash and negligent manner and overtook the bus. At that time, another motor cycle came from opposite direction and the right handle of the motor cycle of the claimant, touched the opposite motorcycle and he lost balance, fell down near the front right side wheel of the
