Karnataka High Court
Maruti Rama Naik vs Vijaya Devappa Hanumgond on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295
MFA No. 102772 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102772 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MARUTI RAMA NAIK,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDING AND
AGENT IN SAMURDHA FOODS LTD.,
R/O: TARIHAL, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIJAYA DEVAPPA HANUMGOND,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NAVI GALLIL, DHAMANE,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
CHANDRASHEKAR
BRANCH OFFICE, SHIKSHAK VISHWASATH
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
MANDAL, SHIKSHAK BHAVAN,
OPPOSITE SANMAN PETROL PUMP,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad bench
Date: 2026.03.23 10:02:33
+0000
COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AND MEMBER IV ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI IN
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295
MFA No. 102772 of 2016
HC-KAR
M.V.C.NO.1092/2014 DATED 17.03.2015 AS UNDER ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION
AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL BY THE APPELLANT AND ETC.,
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 17.03.2015 passed by III Additional District Judge and Member IV Additional MACT, Belagavi1 in MVC no.1092/2014, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Ashok A. Naik, learned counsel for appellant submits that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that 16.08.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., when claimant was waiting for bus to proceed towards Belagavi, rider of motorcycle bearing no.KA-22/F-9100 rode it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant and caused accident. Due to same, claimant sustained grievous injuries and admitted to Gopal Jinagouda Bharatesh Hospital. Despite treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of 1 For short, 'Tribunal' -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295 MFA No. 102772 of 2016 HC-KAR earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition against owner and Insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. On issuance of notice, owner did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Only Insurer opposed claim petition by filing objections.
4. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.SR Angadi as PW1 and PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P21. Insurer did not lead oral evidence but got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider, motorcycle was insured with Insurer and claimant was entitled for compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from Insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum, claimant was in appeal.
6. It was submitted, though claimant had stated that he was aged 38 years and earned Rs.15,000/- as Milk Vendor and -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295 MFA No. 102772 of 2016 HC-KAR Agent of Samrudhi Foods Ltd., Tribunal erroneously considered it at Rs.6,000/- per month. Though claimant sustained fracture of right patella assessed by PW2 to have resulted in 35% disability in Ex.P18-disability certificate, Tribunal did not award compensation towards future loss of income. Even compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at Rs.50,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period and Rs.15,000/- each towards food and other incidental expenses and towards loss of amenities respectively were lower and sought enhancement.
7. On other hand, Sri RR Mane, learned counsel for respondent-Insurer submitted, fracture of patella would not result in any disability or loss of earning capacity and Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as entitled with no scope for enhancement.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties, perused impugned judgment and award.
9. From above, point that would arise for consideration is:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295 MFA No. 102772 of 2016 HC-KAR "Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?"
10. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons:
10.1. Indeed claimant has stated that he was doing Milk Vending, working as Agent of Samrudhi Foods Ltd., and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but without specific document to indicate income from Milk Vending or Agency. In absence, Tribunal would be justified in assessing income notionally. But, notional income for year 2013 being Rs.7,000/-, same has to be considered.
10.2. Though PW2 assessed disability to affected limb at 35%, on examination of disability certificate and deposition of PW2 Tribunal held claimant failed to examine doctor who treated him and establish any reduction in income, denied compensation towards future loss of income. Normally, fracture of patella would not lead to any functional disability. Though, Tribunal assigned different reasons for denial, conclusion appears justified leaving no scope for interference. However, claimant would be entitled for compensation under other heads. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,500/- towards pain and -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295 MFA No. 102772 of 2016 HC-KAR suffering which would be more than adequate therefore, no interference.
10.3. Tribunal awarded Rs.60,930/- towards medical expenses against bills produced. Since, there is complete reimbursement, there would be no scope for enhancement.
Tribunal referred to Ex.P5 discharge summary indicating inpatient treatment from 16.08.2013 to 26.08.2013 i.e., for a period of 11 days and awarded Rs.15,000/- towards diet, attendants and other incidental expenses. Considering duration of treatment, same would be adequate and no scope for enhancement.
11. Though, fracture of patella may heal faster, it is seen that fracture was treated with wiring and implants etc. Therefore, taking period of three months as layoff and Rs.7,000/- as monthly income, claimant is awarded Rs.21,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period. Since no compensation is awarded towards future loss of income, award of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities would be inadequate and is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4295 MFA No. 102772 of 2016 HC-KAR
12. Thus, there is enhancement of compensation by Rs.21,000/-.
13. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award dated 17.03.2015 passed by III Additional District Judge and Member IV Additional MACT, Belagavi in MVC no.1092/2014 is modified.
(ii) Claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.21,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit.
(iii) Insurer is directed to deposit same within six (6) weeks.
(iv) Upon deposit, Tribunal is directed to release same in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE SMM, CT: ASC LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19