Karnataka High Court
Shri.Vishal S/O Sadashiv Birade vs Shri.Naushad Ahmed on 18 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
MFA No. 101792 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
M.F.A. NO. 101792 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI VISHAL S/O. SADASHIV BIRADE,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. BACHI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI NAUSHAD AHMED SIDDIQUE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.F44 FO 5/405, BLD NO.8,
SHUBHA GRAH, KHATIVALI VILLAGE,
DIST: THANE-400604, STATE: MAHARASTRA.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
3RD FLOOR, AMAR EMPIRE,GIA VES CIRCLE,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad Bench
(BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.01.2020 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MACT AT: BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.2113/2018 AND GRANT THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED BY THE APPELLANTS, HEREIN IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
MFA No. 101792 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the appellant/injured
challenging the judgment and award dated 03.01.2020
passed in MVC No.2113/2018 by the VI Additional District
Judge and MACT, Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that on 29.12.2017 at about 7.00 a.m., the appellant was
proceeding as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.MH-10-BW-2741 along with his brother. While
they were proceeding in front of United Auto, Islampur, his
borther's mobile fell on the road, so his brother parked the
motorcycle by the side of that road and went back to pick
up the mobile. The appellant was standing by the side of
the road near that motorcycle. At that time, the driver of
the Luxury private bus bearing Reg.No.MH-04-GP-9045
came in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner so
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
HC-KAR
as to endanger human life, lost control and hit to the
motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to which, the
appellant/injured sustained grievous injuries and he was
immediately shifted to Prakash Hospital, Islampur and
thereafter to various hospitals.
3. Sri. Umesh C. Ainapur, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
committed grave error by assessing the income of the
injured at Rs.7,500/- per month which is required to be
reassessed. Further, it is submitted that the injuries
suffered by the appellant are fracture of tibia and fibula.
Therefore, the assessment of disability at 10% by the
Tribunal is contrary to the medical evidence on record.
Hence, he seeks to reassess the same. It is also submitted
that the award of compensation on all other heads is also
required to be enhanced appropriately by taking note of
the evidence available on record by allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri. S.S.Joshi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2/insurance Company
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
HC-KAR
supports the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal and submits that the injured was a student.
Hence, his income cannot be assessed based on the claim
made by the appellant. It is submitted that the
PW2-Doctor was not a treated Doctor and without any
basis, he has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant
had sustained 40% disability to a particular limb. Hence,
the assessment of disability by the Tribunal is just and
proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, he
seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the material available on
record including trial Court records. The following point
that would arise for our consideration in the present
appeal is, whether the impugned judgment and award
calls for any interference?
6. Answer to the above point would be in the
"affirmative" for the following reasons:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
HC-KAR
7. The pleading and evidence on record indicate
that in a road accident dated 29.12.2017, the appellant
sustained grievous injuries. In the said accident, he
sustained fracture of Tibia and Fibula. He has been
provided treatment in the various hospitals. Admittedly,
PW2 is not a treated Doctor, however, based on the
medical records, he has assessed the disability at 40% to
a particular limb. However, considering the same, Tribunal
assessed the disability at 10%.
8. In our view, taking note of the nature of
treatment provided and disability certificate at Ex.P11, we
are of the considered view that the interest of justice
would be met if we re-assess the disability at 14% for the
purpose of determination of compensation. Similarly, we
re-assess the income of the injured notionally at
Rs.10,250/- per month as against 7,500/- per month
assessed by the Tribunal placing reliance on the notional
income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. Accordingly, the claimant would be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
HC-KAR
entitled to compensation on the head of loss of future
income due to disability is as under:
Rs.10,250 x 12 x 18 x 14% = Rs.3,09,960/-
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal
under other heads are just and reasonable and does not
call for interference. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the
following modified compensation:
1 Loss of future income due to disability Rs.3,09,960/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.68,112/-
3 Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/-
4 Food and nourishment Rs.5,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.3,000/-
6. Travelling expenses Rs.3,000/-
7. Loss of amenities in life Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.4,69,072/-
10. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,69,072/- as against
Rs.3,21,112/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
HC-KAR
ii. The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified holding that the
claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,69,072/- as
against Rs.3,21,112/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
iii. The entire compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
iv. The insurance company shall deposit the
aforesaid compensation amount along
with accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
v. Registry to transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
vi. Draw modified award accordingly.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB
HC-KAR
vii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RKM /CT-AN
