Karnataka High Court
Sri D C Ashok vs Sri Safeer Ahmed D on 14 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6779
MFA No. 10365 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10365 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. D.C. ASHOK
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O M DASARAHALLI,
MADALUR POST,
SIRA TALUK - 572 137.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SATISHA T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SAFEER AHMED D,
S/O MUNEER AHMED,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
AASEEFA PARVEEN R/O PESHUMAM MOHALLA,
Location: HIGH SIRA TOWN - 572 137,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (OWNER OF CAR BEARING,
REG NO. KA 64 M 0382)
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, RAJA COMPLEX,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, SIRA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137,
(POLICY NO. 0714813114P108973044
VALID FROM 22.01.2015 TO 21.01.2016)
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6779
MFA No. 10365 of 2018
(BY SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1001/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Sathisha.T learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao who represents
Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao learned counsel on record for
respondent No.2. Also heard Sri.Keshavamurthy learned
counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the order that is
rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira
in MVC No.1001/2015 dated 01.09.2017.
NC: 2025:KHC:6779
3. On the ground that he sustained grievous injuries in
a road traffic accident, the appellant filed a petition claiming
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through
the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.7,26,000/- as
compensation. Projecting that the compensation granted is
grossly low, the appellant is before this Court.
4. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for
the appellant contends that, the appellant was a Class-I Civil
Contractor, was an Agriculturist and he was also a Syndicate
Member of Tumkur University by the date of accident. The
appellant as a Contractor and Agriculturist was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. The appellant produced Ex.P-5 to
Ex.P-10 RTCs to establish his occupation as Agriculturist.
However, without considering the evidence produced, the
Tribunal awarded meager sum as compensation. Learned
counsel also states that the Tribunal did not award any
justifiable sum as compensation under any head and therefore,
the compensation granted needs enhancement.
5. Per contra, the submission that is made by learned
counsel for respondent No.2 is that, the appellant failed in
NC: 2025:KHC:6779
establishing his actual earnings by the date of accident and also
that there is reduction in his earnings subsequent to the
accident. Learned counsel submits that, there is no loss of
earnings whatsoever and therefore no such evidence was
produced by the appellant.
6. By all the evidence produced, the appellant
succeeded in establishing that he sustained comminuted sub-
trochanteric fracture right femur, right little finger extensor
tendon zone 3 injury and soft tissue injuries. Having
considered the evidence of PW-3 & 4, the Tribunal rightly
assessed the disability in respect of whole body which is
permanent in nature as 20%.
7. So far as the income is concerned, though the
appellant succeeded in establishing that he was a Contractor
and Agriculturist by the date of accident, he could not establish
his actual earnings by the date of accident. However, having
considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the
view that the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a
period of 5 months. But the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.30,000/- only towards loss of income during the laid-up
NC: 2025:KHC:6779
period. Likewise, as rightly contended, the compensation that
is granted by the Tribunal under all other heads requires
marginal enhancement, in the light of the evidence produced by
the appellant more particularly regarding his occupation by the
date of accident. Undoubtedly, the appellant will not be in a
position to attend his duties either as a Contractor or as
agriculturist in a effective way with disability of 20% which is
permanent in nature in respect of whole body. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal requires enhancement to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- so
that the compensation that would be received by the appellant
would be justifiable and which commensurate the injuries and
loss sustained. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the
following:-
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira, through orders in
MVC No.1001/2015 dated 01.09.2017, is enhanced by
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).
NC: 2025:KHC:6779
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit.
iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw
the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DHA
CT: BHK
