Smt Shantawwa vs Shri Rudrappa Mallappa Hunashikatti

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9190 Kant
Judgement Date : 15 October, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Smt Shantawwa vs Shri Rudrappa Mallappa Hunashikatti on 15 October, 2025

                                                      -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921
                                                             MFA No. 100034 of 2024


                             HC-KAR




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                            DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
                                                BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100034 OF 2024 (MV-I)

                            BETWEEN:
                            SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. MALLAPPA HUNASHIKATTI,
                            AGE: 55 YEARS,
                            OCC: COOLIE & VEGETABLE VENDING (NOW NILL)
                            R/O. HOSAMANI CHAWL, BAILHONGAL,
                            TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.
                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                            (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:
                            1.   SHRI RUDRAPPA MALLAPPA HUNASHIKATTI,
                                 AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
                                 R/O. GOKAVI GALLI, BAILHONGAL-591102,
                                 TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

                            2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI                         NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
                                 SAMADEVI GALLI BELAGAVI-590001,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
                                 TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
                                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                                 NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)

                                 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
                            VEHICLES   ACT,    1988   PRAYING    TO   ENHANCE    THE
                            COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
                            SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
                            CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL IN M.V.C.NO.1042/2020
                            DATED 04.09.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921
                                     MFA No. 100034 of 2024


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.Hanamant R.Latur, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. At request of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. Dissatisfied with the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) through orders in M.V.C. No.1042/2020 dated 04.09.2023, the claimant therein has preferred the present appeal.

3. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and one of those -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921 MFA No. 100034 of 2024 HC-KAR injuries is head injury which affected her brain. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 40% and the notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,750/- and the appellant has no grievance in that regard. However the compensation that is granted under the heads pain and suffering, loss of income during laid up period and loss of amenities is on lower side. Learned counsel submits that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 18 days. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.

4. On the other hand, the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence of PW-2, took the disability in respect of whole body as 40% as spoken by him, which is erroneous. Learned counsel states that huge sum of Rs.8,90,931/- is awarded as compensation and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained grievous injuries during the road traffic accident and the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921 MFA No. 100034 of 2024 HC-KAR head injury resulted in disability in respect of whole body to an extent of 40%. Having considered the fact that the appellant took treatment as inpatient though conservatively for 18 days and the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended her normal pursuits at least for a period of 4 months. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,500/- only towards loss of income during laid up period. Also the compensation granted under the head pain and suffering that is Rs.40,000/- is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Considering the totality of evidence produced and the sum that is awarded as compensation under each head by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that in case the compensation granted is enhanced by Rs.40,000/- globally which includes the interest, the total sum that would be received by the appellant as compensation can be termed to be justifiable. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:

-5-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921 MFA No. 100034 of 2024 HC-KAR 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 M.V.C. No.1042/2020 dated 04.09.2023 is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-.
(iii) 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.
(iv) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

Sd/-

(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35