Karnataka High Court
Miyasab S/O Fakirsab Pinjar vs Bavaji Dadabasha And Anr on 29 August, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
MFA No. 200073 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200073 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MIYASAB
S/O FAKIRSAB PINJAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O: C/O: F.D. PINJAR, HOUSE NO. 448,
S.R. COLONY, BAGALKOT ROAD,
JALANAGAR, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRAKASH S.MAISALGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. BAVAJI DADABASHA
by RENUKA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
Location: R/O: H.NO. 6/93, BANDA MASJID TREET,
HIGH COURT TADIPATRI - 515 001, ANDHRA PRADESH.
OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALA MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
UNIT NO.4, 9TH FLOOR (LEVEL-06)
"GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX,
50TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBRB,
RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
MFA No. 200073 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.XII, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.2190/2013 DATED
04.09.2018 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY
GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation as awarded by the
tribunal in the Judgment and award dated 04.09.2018
passed in MVC No.2190/2013 by the III Additional Senior
Civil Judge and MACT-XII, Vijayapura (for short 'the
tribunal')
2. The facts leading to filing of the claim petition by
the appellant/claimant are that, on 21.02.2013 at about 9.30
p.m., when the appellant/claimant was standing on the
extreme left side of the road near Geeta Hotel at Yaragatti,
waiting for the bus, at that time, one lorry bearing
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
HC-KAR
registration No.AP-02/TA-9449 came from Gokak side in a
high speed, rash and negligent manner driven by its driver
and while turning the lorry, the driver lost control and the
vehicle ran over the left foot of the petitioner, as a result the
appellant/claimant's left foot was amputed. The
appellant/claimant has filed the claim petition before the
tribunal seeking compensation. The tribunal appreciating the
evidence on record, assessed the compensation. The
appellant/claimant seeking enhancement has filed this
appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance
company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that, the appellant was working as a mechanic in the KSRTC
and due to the accident and amputation of the left foot, he
could not join the duty. The disability taken by the tribunal at
10% is on lower side. The tribunal ought to have taken the
income as per Ex.P.27 i.e. the pay slip of the other mechanic
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
HC-KAR
i.e. M.F.Kundargi, working in the KSRTC. The compensation
awarded for pain and suffering is on lower side. The tribunal
has not awarded loss of income during the laid up period.
Considering the amputation of the left foot of the
appellant/claimant, the loss of amenities awarded by the
tribunal is on the lower side.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
Insurance company would contend that, the
appellant/claimant was earlier dismissed from the service
and as per the order of the Labour Court, he was reinstated
and he could not join the duties. The appellant/claimant was
getting pay of Rs.9,567/- as per pay slip at Ex.P.26 for
August, 2010 and considering the same, his pay during
February, 2013 may be little higher than that and not as per
Ex.P.27 i.e. pay slip of other employee. He further submits
that, the percentage of disability taken by the tribunal is
proper and correct. The compensation awarded is just and
proper. With this, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has
perused the impugned Judgment and the trial Court records.
7. The appellant/claimant was working as Mechanic
in the KSRTC. As per Ex.P.26, the pay slip for the August,
2010 the gross salary is Rs.9,567/-. As per Ex.P.26, he has
been shown as mechanic. Ex.P.27 is the pay slip of one Sri.
M.F.Kundargi, whose gross pay was Rs.27,821/- and he was
working as D.W.S mechanic. The claimant was working as
mechanic and the said M.F.Kundargi was working as D.W.S
mechanic. Therefore, the pay of the appellant/claimant
cannot be considered on par with the pay of the said
M.F.Kundargi as per Ex.P.27. Considering the gross salary of
Rs.9,567/- as per Ex.P.26 for August, 2010, his pay may be
considered for February, 2013 as Rs.12,000/-. The
appellant/claimant was having a permanent job and he is
aged between 50 to 60 years i.e. 57 years. He is entitle to
future prospects at 15% per annum as per the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR
2017 SC 5157.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
HC-KAR
8. As per the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, there is a
amputation of left foot to the extent of forefeet. As per
Ex.P.24-disablity certificate, the disability is 25%. The said
disability certificate is issued by the non-treated Doctor. The
photograph of the claimant are at Ex.P.18 and on seeing the
same, it is clear that, the front portion of the left foot has
been amputed above the fingers. Considering the age of the
claimant, i.e. 57 years, as on the date of the accident and
the disability certificate at Ex.P.24, the disability has to be
taken at 25%. The tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier at
'9'. In view of the above, the loss of future income is
calculated as under:
Rs.12,000/- X 15% (future prospects) = Rs.13,800/-
Rs.13,800/- X 12 X 9 X 25% = Rs.3,72,600/-.
9. Considering the amputation of the left foot above
the fingers, the pain and sufferings awarded by the tribunal
in a sum of Rs.30,000/- and loss of amenities in a sum of
Rs.30,000/- are on lower side. The appellant/claimant is
entitle to Rs.50,000/- each for pain and sufferings and
towards amenities. The tribunal has rightly awarded a sum
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
HC-KAR
of Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/-
towards conveyance charges. The tribunal has not awarded
loss of income during laid up period. The appellant/claimant
is entitle to loss of income during the laid up period in a sum
of Rs.12,000/- X 3 months = Rs.36,000/-.
10. In view of the above, the appellant/claimant is
entitle to compensation as under:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1 Loss of future income Rs.3,72,600/-
2 Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/-
3 Medical expenses Rs.62,474/-
4 Food and nourishment, Rs.30,000/-
attendant and conveyance
charges
5 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
6 Loss of income during laid up Rs.36,000/-
period
Total Rs.6,01,074/-
11. The appellant is entitle to total compensation of
Rs.6,01,074/- as against Rs.2,56,200/- as awarded by the
tribunal.
12. In view of the above, the following :
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4985
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part;
(ii) The appellant/claimant is entitle to
total compensation of Rs.6,01,074/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization;
(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company
shall deposit the award amount with interest
within a period of eight weeks from this day,
failing which it is liable to pay interest at 9% per
annum;
(iv) The entire amount is ordered to be
released in favour of the appellant/claimant;
(v) Registry to send back the trial Court
records along with a copy of this Judgment.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
SVH
