B SHELAR THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, D M i O gi H ta A ll N y K s U ig M ne A d R b B y P RAYING TO, SHELAR i) CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS IN MVC NO.888/2017 Date: 2026.04.06 DATED 03.01.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE 12:05:38 +0530 AND MEMBER, MACT- V, BALLARI AND ii) ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.3,10,049/- TO RS.12,00,000/- IN MVC NO.888/2017 DATED 03.01.2020 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT-V, BALLARI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The appellant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-V, Ballari (‘Tribunal’ for short) vide judgment and award dated 03.01.2020 in MVC No.888 of 2018, filed this Miscellaneous First Miscellaneous.

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

2.1. On 03.10.2017, the appellant boarded the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06/F-949 from Ballari to Bangalore. The bus driver drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the service road under-pass cement wall. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

2.2. Respondent No.1-Driver appeared through a counsel, however, he did not file a statement of objections.

2.3. Respondent No.2-KSRTC filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, respondent No.2 had paid an interim compensation of ₹5,000/-. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.

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

2.5. The appellant, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW1, examined the Doctor as PW2 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. In rebuttal, respondent No.1-Driver was examined as RW1, and no documents were marked.

2.6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 03.01.2020 and awarded a compensation of ₹3,10,049/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation, and held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount, and directed respondent No.2-KSRTC to deposit the entire compensation amount.

3. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking an enhancement of the compensation.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for KSRTC/Respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the accident is of 2017 and the Tribunal has taken the notional income at ₹7,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He further submits that, the appellant examined the Doctor as PW2, who has issued a disability certificate marked as Ex.P8, which discloses that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 27%, however, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 9%, which is on the lower side. He further submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for KSRTC submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, and do not call for any interference at the hand of this Court. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

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

8. The point that would arise for consideration would be regarding the quantum of compensation.

9. It is an undisputed fact