Karnataka High Court
Durgappa S/O. Maruti Nadakinnamani vs Maruti S/O. Fakirappa Kidadal on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
MFA No. 23938 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23938 OF 2013 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
DURGAPPA S/O. MARUTI NADAKINNAMANI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O. BOCHABAL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI MARUTI S/O. FAKIRAPPA KIDADAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHANDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI,
TAL: SAUNDATTI,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
(INSURER OF HERO HONDA CD DAWN
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA 24/J-3613)
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C. NO.1090/2010
DATED 27.12.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT., SAUNDATTI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE
HEADS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
MFA No. 23938 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Rajashekhar S.Arani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) in M.V.C. No.1090/2010 dated 27.12.2011. This is a claimant's appeal.
3. Undisputedly, the appellant sustained one grievous injury and four simple injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2009. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering for the grievous injury sustained, Rs.20,000/- towards pain -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078 MFA No. 23938 of 2013 HC-KAR and suffering for the four simple injuries at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each, Rs.9,282/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards food, conveyance and other incidental charges. A sum of Rs.61,282/- rounded to Rs.61,300/- is awarded in total. The version of the appellant is that the said sum is grossly low.
4. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-2 assessed the disability in respect of right upper limb as 10% but the same was not considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation either under the head 'loss of future earnings' or under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of amenities in life. Learned counsel also contends that the compensation granted under all heads is on lower side.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Rajashekhar S.Arani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078 MFA No. 23938 of 2013 HC-KAR appellant is not suffering with any kind of permanent physical disability as such and therefore the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is proper.
6. As rightly put forth by learned counsel for the appellant, as per the evidence of PW-2, the disability in respect of right upper limb is 10%. Also it is clear that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 5 days. Undoubtedly, the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 3 months in the light of the grievous injury sustained to the right upper limb. Therefore, the appellant is certainly entitled to compensation towards loss of earnings during laid up period. Also this Court is of the view that the compensation granted towards food, conveyance, extra nourishment and attendant charges that is Rs.2,000/- is on lower side. The disability as assessed by PW-2 in respect of right upper limb is 10%. Therefore, the disability in respect of whole body comes around 3% to 3.5%. Therefore, the appellant will face certain extent of disability to attend his duties even -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078 MFA No. 23938 of 2013 HC-KAR subsequent to recovery due to the injury sustained. Thus, considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the sum awarded as compensation is required to be enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.
7. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti through orders in M.V.C. No.1090/2010 dated 27.12.2011 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit except -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078 MFA No. 23938 of 2013 HC-KAR for the period of delay of 439 days as per the order dated 16.07.2014.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24