IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100087 OF 2023 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. GANAPAT S/O. KRISHNA KAMBLE, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL), R/O. CHANDAGAD, NOW STAYING AT BACHI, TQ., DIST. BELAGAVI.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. PRIYANKA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KOLHAPUR DIVISION, MSRTC, NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE, PIN-416001.

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2026.03.27 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

15:51:33 +0530 SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO A) ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1584/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND IX ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and award dated 22.09.2022 passed in M.V.C. No.1584/2020 by the learned VIII Additional District and and IX Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi.

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

On 11.03.2018, the petitioner met with an accident, which was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of an MSRTC bus bearing registration No.HM- 14/BT-4868. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and incurred substantial medical expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident.

Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

3. The respondent filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, including the age, avocation, and income of the petitioner, and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the relevant issues.

5. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW2, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The respondent did not lead neither oral nor documentary evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 22.09.2022 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,57,259/- (rounded of to Rs.2,57,300/-) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, and directed the respondent to deposit the said amount.

7. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this appeal seeking an enhancement.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, and suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 25%. She further submitted that the doctor examined as PW2 who has issued a disability certificate assessing the disability at 25%, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at only 8%, which is on the lower side. She submitted that the overall compensation awarded by the tribunal is inadequate, and accordingly, prayed for allowing the appeal.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties.

12. The point that would ar