Karnataka High Court
Ambrish S/O Srinivas vs Sangshetty Topare And Anr on 3 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
MFA No. 200988 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200988 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
AMBRISH S/O SRINIVAS,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANGSHETTY TOPARE
S/O REVANSIDDAPPA TOPARE,
Digitally AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date: R/O HOUSE NO.3-1-158, TALIM GALLI ,
2025.02.07
11:01:57 -
0800 BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585 328.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANGE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ANNA SALAI, SUNDARAM BUILDING,
CHANNAI-600 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 19.01.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
MFA No. 200988 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2019
PASSED BY THE ADDL. MACT AND ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR (SITTING AT BHALKI), IN MVC
NO.341/2016 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT.
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)
By the consent of learned counsel appearing for both
the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal,
though it is slated for Admission.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 20.07.2019 in MVC No.341/2016 passed by
the learned Additional MACT and Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Bidar (Sitting at Bhalki) (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
2. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded a sum of Rs.6,02,000/- as compensation and
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant is
before this Court, seeking enhancement contending that
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
on the lower side.
3. The factual matrix of the case which is not in
dispute is that, on 16.11.2015, the appellant/claimant
along with his friend was proceeding on a motorcycle
bearing No.KA-39/K-1216 from Bidar to Bhalki. At that
time, a Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-39/M-1811
came from behind and dashed to the motorcycle, resulting
in the petitioner falling down and sustaining injuries. The
claimant was admitted to Apex Hospital, Bidar and then he
was shifted to Hyderabad for higher treatment. A case
came to be registered in Crime No.182/2015 of Janwada
Police Station and ultimately, a charge sheet has been
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
filed against the driver of the bolero vehicle. The claimant
claims that he was 26 years old and was a legal
practitioner, earning Rs.30,000/- per month and due to
the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent
disability and as such, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are
the owner and insurer of the bolero vehicle are liable to
pay the compensation to the claimant. As noted above,
the fact of accident is not in dispute.
4. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle appeared
before the Tribunal and filed written statement stating that
the vehicle was insured by respondent No.2 and as such,
the liability be fastened on respondent No.2.
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company disputed
the quantum of compensation claimed, terming the same
as highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. It denied
the liability on the ground that there are violations of the
terms and conditions of the policy. However, such violation
of the terms and conditions of the policy were not
established by it before the Tribunal and as such, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
Tribunal has fastened the liability on respondent No.2-
Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and
evidence was let in. The claimant was examined as PW.1
and the Medical Officer, who has assessed the disability
was examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to 26 were marked in
evidence. After hearing both sides, by considering the
income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month and the
functional disability at 10%, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.6,02,000/- to the claimant under the
following heads:
1. Loss of future earnings Rs.2,04,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.2,88,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
4. Conveyance & attendant Rs.20,000/-
charges
5. Food and nourishment Rs.20,000/-
6. Loss of laid up period for 2 Rs.20,000/-
months
Total Rs.6,02,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side and it has not properly
assessed the same. The only aspect which is in dispute is
regarding the quantum of compensation.
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2-Insurance Company submits that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and he
defends the impugned judgment.
10. The Tribunal, considering the Disability
Certificate issued by PW.2, which shows that the petitioner
had sustained the disability of 44% to the left lower limb,
held the functional disability at 10%. The appellant claims
that he is a legal practitioner and therefore, the disability
to the left lower limb affects his movement, which is
essential for him in his profession. Therefore, it can easily
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
be deciphered from the evidence on record that, the
functional disability of 10% assessed by the Tribunal is on
the lower side. The 44% disability of the left lower limb
can easily be translated into a functional disability of 14%.
The age of the appellant being 26 years, his income
assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month and
the multiplier of '17' need not be interfered with.
Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of
future earnings is calculated as: Rs.10,000 x 12 x 17 x
14% = Rs.2,85,600/-.
11. Further, the compensation under the head of
loss of income during laid up period needs to be enhanced
for a period of three months and therefore, the same is
assessed at Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 3).
12. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life.
Therefore, it would be just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.30,000/- under this head.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the remaining heads does not call for any
interference by this Court.
14. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the
modified compensation under different heads as below:
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.2,88,000/-
Food and nourishment Rs.20,000/-
Conveyance & attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
Loss of future earnings Rs.2,85,600/-
Loss of income during laid up period Rs.30,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.7,23,600/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.6,02,000/-
Enhancement Rs.1,21,600/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,21,600/- with interest and
therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:769
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a
sum of Rs.1,21,600/- in addition to what
has been awarded by the Tribunal together
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization.
(iii) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire compensation
amount within a period of six weeks from the
date of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
remains unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG
