Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Gouse vs Sharana Basappa And Anr on 10 October, 2025
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB
MFA No. 201228 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201228 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED GOUSE
S/O BASHU MIYA,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: MECHANIC NOW NILL,
R/O H.NO.9-7-30/1,
AYYA BOWDI MADDIPET,
RAICHUR-584 101.
Digitally signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARANA BASAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVARAYA MUNOLLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER/OWNER,
R/O H.NO.1-11-53/32,
GOURI SHANKAR NILAYA,
SRI. RAM NAGAR COLONY, RAICHUR -584 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB
MFA No. 201228 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
H.D.F.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HM. GENEVA HOUSE 1ST FLOOR,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-500 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MVC ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY
SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.02.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IIND ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR IN MVC
NO.364/2016.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB
MFA No. 201228 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.02.2018 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT at Raichur in MVC No.364/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 02.08.2016 at about 11.05 am near RTO office, Raichur, on Raichur-Mantralaya road, the driver of car bearing registration No.MA-12/CD-9419 drove the same from Railway station, Raichur towards Mantralaya, took U turn near RTO circle thereby dashed to the bike coming from opposite direction and caused the accident. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR spent huge amount towards medical expenses. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1, Sashikanta Prusty was examined as PW-2 and Dr.Harishmurthy was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the respondents, got marked exhibited document namely Ex.R1.
6. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,84,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
7. Sri. Sharanagouda V. Patil, the learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing mechanic work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.9,000/- p.m which is on the lower side. He further contends that, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in case of Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others, AIR 2020 SCC 4424. The claimant is also entitled for future prospectus.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR
b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 85% to the whole body due to amputation of right lower limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 43%, which is on the lower side.
c) Thirdly, he contends that the right above knee has been amputated. The claimant required artificial leg and it costs more than Rs.2,00,000/-. But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.50,000/-. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
d) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 15 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and has to suffer the disability throughout his life. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
8. On the other hand, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:
a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- p.m.
b) Secondly, even though doctor has deposed that claimant has suffered 85% disability to the whole body, due to the amputation of right lower limb, he has not assessed the disability to the particular limb before assessing the whole body. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly considered the whole body disability as 43% is just and reasonable.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR
c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the evidence of doctor age and avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and reasonable.
d) Lastly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW- 3 and he has deposed regarding the cost of artificial leg. Tribunal has justified in granting Rs.50,000/- for an artificial leg is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
10. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 02.08.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the car -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR bearing registration No.MA-12-CD-9419. Due to the above accident, the claimant has suffered the following injuries: -
(i) Supracondylar fracture of right Femur
(ii) Multiple abrasions
(iii) Lacerations
11. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed.
Considering the age of the claimant and he was working as mechanic, the Tribunal has justified in considering that monthly income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- p.m.
12. The claimant has examined as PW-3 Dr.Harishmurthy, Orthopedic Surgeon, Raichur has deposed that the claimant has suffered disability of 85% to the whole body due to amputation of right lower limb. Going through the medical records and evidence of the doctor, it is very clear that right lower limb has been amputated above knee below the hip. Considering the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR schedule in Employees Compensation Act, 1923 serial No.17 for Amputation below hip with stump not exceeding 12.70 Cms. in length measured from tip of great trenchanter is 80%. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor and medical records, we are of the opinion that whole body disability has to be assessed 80%.
13. The claimant is aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income of the claimant has to be considered future prospects. The multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,77,280/- on account of 'loss of future income' has been reassessed as follows:
Rs.12,600/- x 12 x 18 x 80/100 = Rs.21,77,280/-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR
14. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered the above said injuries and was treated as inpatient for a period of 15 days in the hospital. He has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the evidence of doctor and injuries suffered by the claimant, we inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
15. In respect of artificial leg is concerned, considering that evidence of doctor, the disability suffered by the claimant is 85% and there is an amputation or right lower limb, we are of the opinion that compensation awarded by the Tribunal for artificial leg has to be enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.
16. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR
17. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation As awarded by As awarded by under different the Tribunal this Court Heads (Rs.) (Rs.) Transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Food, attendant Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- & nourishment charge Medical expenses Rs.1,22,923/- Rs.1,22,923/- Artificial leg Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and Rs.50,000/- Rs.60,000/- suffering Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- Loss of future Rs.8,35,920/- Rs.21,77,280/- earnings Rs.10,83,843/- Rs.25,30,203/-
Total
Enhancement Rs.14,46,360/-
18. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,30,203/- as against Rs.10,83,843/- awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced compensation of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB MFA No. 201228 of 2018 HC-KAR Rs.14,46,360/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
d) The Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: SB