Karnataka High Court
Sukhachandra S/O Babu Tandel vs Kamalakar Budhwant Mesta on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
MFA No. 103388 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103388 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI SUKHACHANDRA
S/O BABU TANDEL, AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE CUM HAMAL AT PRESENT NIL,
R/O: TONKA, KASARKOD, HONNAVAR TALUK,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANKIT R. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KAMALAKAR BUDHWANT MESTA,
REGD. OWNER OF TRUCK
BEARING NO.KA-30/A-1114,
R/O: TULASINAGAR, HONNAVARA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.07 05:45:05
+0100
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MOSQUE ROAD, UDUPI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RS ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED DATED 20.07.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.
AT HONNAVAR, IN MVC NO.71/2010 & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
MFA No. 103388 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.07.2013 passed by Additional MACT, Honnavar, ('Tribunal' for short), in MVC no.71/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Ankit R. Desai, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, at 11.30 p.m., on 18.04.2009 when claimant was traveling in Lorry no.KA.30/A-1114 belonging to respondent no.1 as cleaner, near Shajee Garage, Karwar, driver was driving it in rash and negligent manner due to which he lost control and vehicle turtled down. Due to said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at District Hospital Karwar and Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, did not recover fully and lost earning capacity. Claiming compensation, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('MV Act' for short), against owner and insurer of Lorry.
3. On appearance, claim petition was opposed on all grounds, based on which, issues were framed and evidence recorded. Claimant along with Dr.Arjun Shetty, deposed as -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982 MFA No. 103388 of 2014 HC-KAR PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.120. Respondents examined 2 witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R.1 and R2.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry by its driver, vehicle was covered with insurance policy and claimant was entitled for compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum jointly from owner/insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum, appeal was filed.
5. It was submitted, as on date of accident claimant was 34 years of age, working as cleaner in Lorry and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Claimant sustained severe injuries to C4, C5 of his neck. He was unable to move his hands/legs and lost control over bladder and bowels. Exs.P.119-Disabiloity certificate issued by Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, recorded claimant suffering from traumatic quadriparesis leading to disability of 60-70%. Same was also spoken about by PW.2. Despite same, Tribunal considered only 25% as loss of earning capacity and awarded inadequate compensation. It was submitted Tribunal also erred in not adding future prospects to monthly income. Even -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982 MFA No. 103388 of 2014 HC-KAR compensation awarded towards 'pain and suffering', 'medical expenses', 'incidental expenses', 'loss of income during laid-up period' were on lower side and sought enhancement. It was submitted Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. On said grounds, prayed for allowing appeal.
6. On other hand, Sri RS Arani, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted Tribunal had rightly considered 1/3rd of limb disability as whole body disability and assessed compensation accordingly. Even compensation awarded under other heads, was just and proper. Therefore, there was no scope for enhancement and sought dismissal of appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused judgment, award and record.
8. From above, point arising for consideration is:
Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?
9. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle, claimant sustaining -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982 MFA No. 103388 of 2014 HC-KAR permanent physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity and being entitled for compensation from insurer.
10. Though claimant stated that he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month working as cleaner, he did not substantiate same. Therefore, it is required to be assessed notionally. Notional income for year 2009 is Rs.5,000/-, same has to be considered. Claimant sustained injuries to C4, C5 of his neck and suffered from quadriparesis assessed to have caused permanent physical disability of 60-70% as per Exs.P.119- Disability Certificate. Apart from same, he also lost control over his bladder and bowels. PW-2 - deposed that claimant was unable to perform even daily routine activities and required assistance. In view of same, it has to be held that claimant lost entire earning capacity.
11. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.1, claimant would be entitled for addition of future prospects even in personal injury case. Since, claimant was 36 years of age and self employed, future prospects at 40% has to be added and 1 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982 MFA No. 103388 of 2014 HC-KAR multiplier applicable would be '15'. Thus, compensation towards 'future loss of income' would be:
Rs.5,000/- + 40% X 12 X 15 = Rs.12,60,000/-
12. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' which under circumstances, appears just and proper. Even Rs.62,000/- awarded as 'medical expenses', Rs.15,000/- towards 'conveyance, food and other incidental expenses' and Rs.18,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid- up period' appears adequate leaving no scope for enhancement.
13. However, Tribunal had not awarded any compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. Considering his young age and disability sustained, it is found fit to award Rs.1,50,000/- under said head. Thus total compensation would be Rs.16,05,000/-. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982 MFA No. 103388 of 2014 HC-KAR
(ii) Judgment and award dated 20.07.2013 passed by Additional MACT, Honnavar in MVC no.71/2010, is modified.
(iii) Appellant/claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,05,000/- as against Rs.3,30,000/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum excluding period of 427 days being delay in filing appeal.
(iv) Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation with interest before Tribunal within six (6) weeks.
(v) On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of claimant and remaining amount is ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank earning highest interest with provision for online transfer into account of claimant with also provision for release in case any amount is needed for medical exigencies or such other similar purpose.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM:
CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12