Karnataka High Court
Hanamant vs Basavaraj on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
MFA No. 103251 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
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. 103251 OF 2014
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100096 OF 2015
IN MFA NO.103251/2014 :
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVARAJ S/O RAMAGONDA PAYAGON,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: HIPPARAGI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI HANAMANT S/O RAMACHANDRA BHAJANTRI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
R/AT: HIPPARAGI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
Date: 2026.04.06 11:17:29
+0100
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.856/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIM TRIBUNAL NO.VI JAMKHANDI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,09,600/- WITH THE INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT AND COSTS WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF ORDER & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
MFA No. 103251 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN MFA.CROB NO.100096/2015 :
BETWEEN:
SRI HANAMANT
S/O RAMACHANDRA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIPPARAGI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BASAVARAJ S/O RAMAGONDA PAYAGON,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIPPARAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.103251/2014 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC. 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2013, PASSED IN
MVC NO.856/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-VI, JAMKHANDI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
MFA No. 103251 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 23.09.2013 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT no.VI, Jamkhandi, ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.856/2009, appeal and cross objection are filed.
2. Sri Siddappa S.Sajjan, learned counsel for appellant submitted, appeal was by owner of vehicle challenging finding of Tribunal on negligence as well as on quantum. It was submitted that at 01.30 p.m. on 23.01.2008, when claimant was travelling on tractor no.KA-23/1249 with two trailers bearing CH-03 and CH-04, towards Saundatti, near Sangappanakolla, driver of tractor drove it in rash and negligent manner and took sudden right turn. Due to which tractor dashed against a Bus causing injuries to claimant's leg. Though he was admitted at Government Hospital at Saundatti, and later at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and also took treatment at Ganga Surgical Hospital, Gokak, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore he filed claim petition against owner of tractor trailer under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short). -4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965 MFA No. 103251 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015 HC-KAR
3. On contest, when claim petition was opposed on all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.Naveen Malagi as PWs1 and 2 and got mark Exs.P1 to P19. Owner examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to negligence of driver of tractor and as tractor trailers were not insured, owner was liable to pay compensation assessed at Rs.5,09,600/- with 6% interest. Aggrieved, present appeal was filed by owner in which claimant has filed cross objection for enhancement.
5. It was submitted that even as per police prosecution records relied upon by claimant, charge sheet was filed against driver of driver of tractor wherein it was mentioned that claimant was travelling on trailer with his feet protruding outside trailer and which had contributed to accident in question and also aggravated disability.
6. Even on quantum, it was submitted, assessment of functional disability at 40% when doctor had assessed 80% to limb, was excessive and called for moderation. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965 MFA No. 103251 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015 HC-KAR
7. On other hand, Sri Prashant S.Kadadevar, learned counsel while opposing owner's appeal, submitted that claimant had filed cross objection for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that as on date of accident i.e., 23.01.2008, claimant was 32 years of age, working as coolie and earning Rs.14,000/- per month. However, Tribunal considered his monthly income on lower side on Rs.4,500/-. It was submitted there was no dispute that accidental injuries had led to amputation of claimant's right leg above knee. Consequently, claimant had lost his entire earning capacity. Therefore, assessment of functional disability at 40% was on lower side. It was submitted, even compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.5,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' were on lower side and sought enhancement. He prayed for adding future prospects to monthly income for calculating 'loss of future income'. On said ground sought for allowing cross objection.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment, award and record.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965 MFA No. 103251 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015 HC-KAR
9. From above, points that would arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether Tribunal was justified in not assigning any contributory negligence against claimant?
And
(ii) Whether assessment of compensation calls for modification".
10. Point no.(i) : To establish actionable negligence against owner of tractor, claimant relied upon police prosecution records. There is no dispute that charge sheet arraigns driver of tractor for causing accident due to rash and negligent driving. For purposes of claim petition under MV Act, reliance on police investigation records to establish actionable negligence would suffice. Though it is contented by referring to contents of Ex.P6-charge sheet that legs of claimant were protruding outside tractor trailer, if driver of tractor trailer noticed same, he ought to have stopped tractor. Further there is no complaint filed by driver of tractor against claimant for negligence. Therefore, owner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own mistake. In light of said reasoning, point no.(i) is answered in affirmative.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965 MFA No. 103251 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015 HC-KAR
11. Point no.(ii) : Though impugned award is also challenged on quantum, it is seen there is no dispute that at time of accident claimant was 32 years old, coolie and stated to be earning Rs.14,000/-, sustained amputation of right leg above knee. Amputation of lower limb above knee, even under provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 would result in loss of earning capacity in excess of 40%. Therefore challenge by owner on quantum would not sustain. On other hand, considering occupation and compensation awarded towards artificial limb, though physical disability may be to a higher extent than assessed but with use of artificial limb, same is likely to reduce. Therefore assessment of functional disability at 40% is retained. Though claimant stated that he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as agricultural coolie, same is not substantiated. In absence, Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs.4,500/- notionally, which is slightly higher than notional income adopted for purposes of settlement of claim petition before Lok-Adalat. Same is sustained. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965 MFA No. 103251 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015 HC-KAR
12. However in view of ratio laid down in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.1 (Erudhaya Priya), there would be substance in contention that future prospects are required to be added even in personal injury claims.
13. Considering age of claimant at 32 years and he being self employed, addition of future prospects would be at 40% and multiplier applicable would be '16'. Thus compensation towards future loss of income would be:
40% of Rs.4,500/- (+ 40%) X 12 X 16 = Rs.4,83,840/-.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar and Anr.2, has held in case of amputation, claimant would be entitled for compensation towards 'pain and suffering' as well as towards 'loss of amenities" substantially. Award of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively towards same, by Tribunal would be grossly inadequate. Therefore, sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards 'pain and suffering' and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of 1 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 2 2011 ACJ 1 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965 MFA No. 103251 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015 HC-KAR amenities' and 'loss of expectation in life' together. Compensation of Rs.4,000/- towards transportation, Rs.25,000/- towards food, nourishment and other attendant charges, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid-up period' and Rs.50,000/- towards artificial limb are not challenged and sustained. Thus total compensation would be paid be Rs.8,12,840/- Point no.(ii) is answered accordingly. Consequently following;
ORDER
i. MFA no.103251/2014 is dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment. iii. MFA Crob. no.100096/2015 is allowed in part. iv. Judgment and award dated 23.09.2013 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT no.VI, Jamkhandi, in MVC no.856/2009 stands modified.
v. Claimant is held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.8,12,840/- as against Rs.5,09,600/- awarded by Tribunal, with
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965 MFA No. 103251 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015 HC-KAR interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit.
vi. Appellant is directed to deposit enhanced compensation before Tribunal within 8 weeks. vii. On deposit, same is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of 5 years.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9