Karnataka High Court
Ambadas S/O Sampatrao Sindhe @ ... vs Chand Pasha And Anr on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2049
MFA No. 201422 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201422 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
AMBADAS S/O SAMPATRAO SINDHE @
PEEROJIRAO SINDHE,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI, CONTRACT
(CENTERING WORK) & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.E/2-165, DAR-POLICE COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHAND PASHA
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
S/O MAHBOOB SAB MUJAWAR,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
Location: HIGH NO.KA-35/C-1224 (TIPPER),
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O: H.NO. 11-20, BRAHMPUR, LALGERI,
NEAR MASJID, KALABURAGI-585 101.
2. THE MANAGER,
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO. 127A, BHAVANI ARCADE,
3RD FLOOR, 306, 307, 308,
NEAR OLD BUS STAND,
OPP: BASAVA VAND,
NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBLI-580 029,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2049
MFA No. 201422 of 2019
THROUGH ITS SERVICE OFFICE,
AT G1,G2,G12 & G13,
ASIAN ARCADE, NEAR ANAND HOTEL,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 03.06.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.
78/2018 BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI. AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.5,97,400/- WITH 9% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH
12% INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard learned counsel the appellant and learned
counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2049
2. Though matter is slated for admission, with the
consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for final
disposal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
head future loss of income is incorrect, since the functional
disability of the petitioner has been considered by the
Tribunal at 11% though PW.2 assessed the same at 33%.
4. The fact that there was an accident on
29.03.2013 involving the motorcycle of the petitioner and
a Tipper owned by respondent No.1 and insured by the
respondent No.2 is not in dispute.
5. The petitioner claims that he was an
agriculturist and working in centering in building
construction works; and aged about 25 years. The records
reveal that the petitioner had sustained fracture of tibia,
fibula and patella of the right leg. It was treated by way of
plating and inserting the implants. He was inpatient for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2049
13+5 days in the hospital. The Tribunal took the notional
income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/- despite there being
no cogent evidence regarding the income of the petitioner
and holding the disability at 11%, it awarded
compensation of Rs.1,78,200/- under the head of future
loss of income.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the disability should have been considered on
appreciating the avocation of the petitioner. In his opinion,
the disability stated by PW.2 at 33% has to be considered
towards the functional disability.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
submits that the disability has been properly assessed by
the Tribunal and no reassessment is required.
8. On careful perusal of the records, it reveals that
petitioner aged about 25 years, engaged in building
construction as centering labourer had suffered the
fracture of tibia, fibula and patella of the right leg. PW.2
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2049
assessed the disability at 33% to the whole body. In fact,
the said disability should have been assessed for the right
lower limb.
9. Considering the avocation of the petitioner and
the functional impairment, the disability has to be held at
15%. However, it is pertinent to note that, the Tribunal
having considered the notional income at Rs.7,500/- per
month, which is also slightly on the higher side, this Court
is of the view that it is a fit case where the petitioner has
to be awarded an additional global compensation of
Rs.50,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal succeeds in-part.
10. In the result, the petitioner is entitled for global
compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what
has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2049
(ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- in
addition to the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, along with interest at
6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
deposit.
(iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance
company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands
unaltered.
(v) The Registry to send back the trial court
records to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SDU
CT: AK
