Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar Fakirappa Channapagoudar vs Rajashekhar Govindgouda Patil on 13 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13775
MFA No. 102746 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102746 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI GANGADHAR FAKIRAPPA CHANNAPAGOUDAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE JOB AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591109.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GURUKUMAR V.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAJASHEKHAR GOVINDGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591109.
2. THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MERCHANT BANK BUILDING, S.R. CIRCLE,
GIRIJA A. BAILHONGAL-591109.
BYAHATTI
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT
RECORDS IN M.V.C.NO.507/2014 DATED 02-11-2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE COURT OF "IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BAILHONGAL AT: BAILHONGAL";
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD FROM RS.1,85,800/- TO RS.5,00,000/ IN M.V.C.
NO.507/2014 DATED 02-11-2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
"IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
M.A.C.T., BAILHONGAL AT: BAILHONGAL".
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13775
MFA No. 102746 of 2016
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 Sri Gurukumar V.A. learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Ravindra R. Mane learned counsel for respondent No.2. At request of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal, through the orders in MVC 507 of 2014 dated 02.11.2015, the claimant therein has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.
3. Sri Gurukumar V.A. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained fracture of distal end of left radius and he underwent a surgery also. Though PW2 stated that the disability is 25% in respect of left upper limb, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 8% which is improper. Learned counsel submits that -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13775 MFA No. 102746 of 2016 HC-KAR the compensation granted thus is on lower side. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.
4. Sri Ravindra R. Mane learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand states that the sum that is awarded as compensation is highly justifiable and thus the award needs no interference.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of distal end of left radius during a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2013 and he took treatment as inpatient for 2 days. It is equally not in dispute that an operation was conducted and external fixator was fixed. Having considered the evidence of PW2, who deposed that the disability in respect of left upper limb is 25%, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 8%, which needs no interference. As per the version of the appellant, by doing agriculture and running flourmill, he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. To establish his occupation, the appellant produced Ex.P24-RTC Extract. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13775 MFA No. 102746 of 2016 HC-KAR holding that the appellant would have taken bed rest for at least two months. However having considered the nature of injury sustained and the surgery underwent, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of three months. Thus taking into consideration said fact and the totality of evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is awarded by the tribunal is required to be enhanced by Rs.20,000/- so that the sum which the appellant receives will meet the ends of justice. Therefore 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, Bailhongal, through orders in MVC 507 of 2014 dated 02.11.2015 is enhanced by Rs.20,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13775 MFA No. 102746 of 2016 HC-KAR
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 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 EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39