[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Chethan Kumar B vs Rajashekar P @ Raju Sri. Eshwarappa on 1 December, 2025

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                     -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB
                                                           MFA No. 103011 of 2019


                       HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                           DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                             PRESENT
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                               AND
                                THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103011 OF 2019 (MV-I)
                      BETWEEN:
                      SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR B.
                      S/O SRI. SRINIVAS B.
                      AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                      R/O ILIGANUR CAMP,
                      GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT.
                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. T. BASAVANA GOUD, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1.   RAJASHEKAR P. @ RAJU. SRI. ESHWARAPPA
                           AGED ABOUT, 36 YEARS,
                           R/O D.NO.176, KUDITHINI VILLAGE,
                           BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                           (DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING NO.KA-25 TC-006679)

                      2.   SRI. M. MAHANTHESH S/O SRI. K. CHENNABASAPPA
Digitally signed by
                           MAJOR, R/O HOUSE NO.108,
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                           WARD NO.2, NEAR DEDIGERE KATTE,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.12.04
                           KURUGODU VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK & DISTRICT.
11:01:43 +0530
                           (OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING NO.KA-25 TC -006679)

                      3.   BRANCH MANAGER,
                           HUBBALLI BRANCH,
                           HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
                           OPP. KIMS MAIN GATE, R.B. ROAD,
                           VIDHYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
                      NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
                      NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
                              -2-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB
                                     MFA No. 103011 of 2019


HC-KAR



      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC
NO.341/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL BALLARI AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.12.2018 PASSED BY THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BALLARI IN SO FAR GRANTING A COMPENSATION ONLY A SUM OF
RS.2,65,000/- WITH 8% INTEREST AS A COMPENSATION TO THE
APPELLANT HEREIN AND ETC.

     THIS MFA    COMING   ON   FOR   ORDERS,        THIS   DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
            AND
            THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

The claimant-injured is before this Court dissatisfied with

the quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and

award dated 29.12.2018 in M.V.C. No.341/2016 on the file of

learned Member, MACT-III, Ballari (for short, 'Tribunal'),

praying for enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri. T. Basavana Goud for

the appellant and Sri. Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel

for respondent-Insurance Company and perused the appeal

papers.

3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation for the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB

HC-KAR

injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that

occurred on 03.08.2015 involving Bike bearing temporary

registration No.KA-34/NT-008045 and Car bearing temporary

registration No.KA-25-TC-006679. It is stated that the

appellant/claimant was aged about 23 years as on the date of

the accident and working as Supervisor in M/s. Laxmi Rama

Constructions, earning Rs.10,500/- per month.

4. On issuance of notice, respondent-Insurance

Company appeared through its counsel and filed statement of

objections denying the entire claim petition averments. It was

contended that due to negligence on the part of rider of the

bike, the accident took place. It was further contended that

the driver of the car had no valid and effective driving license

as on the date of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the

claim petition.

5. The claimant in support of his case examined

himself as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PW2 & PW3

apart from marking twenty documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The

respondents did not examine any witness nor marked any

document. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB

HC-KAR

awarded total compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- with interest at

8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization on the following heads:

Pain & suffering                                        Rs.40,000/-
Loss of amenities & comfort                             Rs.40,000/-
Medical expenses                                        Rs.95,000/-

Attendant charges, conveyance & other incidental expenses Rs.15,000/-

Loss of income during laid-up period Rs.15,000/- Permanent physical impairment Rs.60,000/-

-----------------

              Total                                     Rs.2,65,000/-

     6.       While    awarding        the   above     compensation,        the

Tribunal assessed notional income of the claimant/injured at

Rs.10,500/- per month, however, did not award any

compensation on the head of loss of future income, as the

claimant had continued to work in his earlier job as

supervisor. Not being satisfied with the quantum of

compensation, the claimant is before this Court praying for

enhancement of compensation.

7. Sri.T. Basavana Goud, learned counsel for the

appellant/injured would submit that though the Tribunal

assessed income of the injured at Rs.10,500/-, but committed

an error in not awarding any compensation on the head of loss

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB

HC-KAR

of future income due to disability. He submits that the

Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under each

heads, which requires to be modified by awarding

appropriately. Thus, he prays for enhancement of

compensation by allowing the appeal.

8. Per contra, Sri.Iranagouda Kabbur, learned counsel

for respondent-Insurance Company supporting the impugned

judgment and award of the Tribunal submits that even after

the accident, the claimant has continued to work as

Supervisor, hence, question of awarding compensation under

the head loss of future income due to disability would not

arise. He further submits that the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no

interference. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would

arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the

appellant/claimant would be entitled for enhanced

compensation?

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB

HC-KAR

10. Answer to the above point would be in the

'affirmative' for the following reasons.

11. The occurrence of the accident that took place on

03.08.2015 involving Bike bearing temporary registration

No.KA-34/NT-008045 and Car bearing Temporary registration

No.KA-25-TC-006679, resulting in injuries to the claimant is

not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant is before this Court

praying for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal

assessed notional income of the claimant at Rs.10,500/- per

month, however, did not award any compensation on the head

of loss of future income due to disability. Admittedly, even

after the accident, the claimant has continued to work as

Supervisor, as he was doing earlier. Hence, question of

granting compensation on the head of loss of future income

does not arise. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in refusing to

grant compensation on the head of loss of future income due

to disability.

12. The claimant has sustained fracture of shaft of

right femur and other injuries. In support of his case, the

claimant examined PW3-Doctor, who has deposed in his

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB

HC-KAR

evidence that the injured/claimant has suffered 24%

permanent partial physical disability. Further, the claimant

was an inpatient for a period of 7 days.

13. Taking note of injuries sustained by the claimant

and period of treatment taken by him, the Tribunal awarded a

total compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- under different heads,

which in our view is on the lower side.

14. Considering the nature of injuries and also fracture

sustained by the claimant, instead of enhancing the

compensation under all heads, we deem it appropriate to

award a global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which would

meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the claimant would be

entitled to a global sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, in addition to the

compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. To that

extent, the impugned judgment and award is modified.

15. Hence, we pass the following order:

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

b) The impugned judgment & award passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to a

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16788-DB

HC-KAR

global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal.

c) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.


               d) On    such    deposit,      the    same    shall   be
                  released           in       favour        of       the
                  appellant/claimant.