Karnataka High Court

Ahmedi Begum vs Pandith Madakatti And Anr on 14 July, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876
                                                     MFA No. 200270 of 2023


                   HC-KAR




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200270 OF 2023 (MV-I)
                   BETWEEN:

                   AHMEDI BEGUM W/O PASHA SHAH,
                   AGE: 46 YEARS,
                   OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND COOLIE WORK,
                   R/O VILLAGE OLD MAILOR,
                   TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-584101.

                                                                ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   PANDITH MADAKATTI
Digitally signed        S/O BABURAO MADAKATTI,
by NIJAMUDDIN           AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
JAMKHANDI               R/O PLOT NO.3, GOWLI LAYOUT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                SHIVANAGAR NORTH,
KARNATAKA               BIDAR-584102.
                        (OWNER OF MARUTHI SWIFT D-ZIRE CAR
                        NO.KA-38/M-3352).

                   2.   THE MANAGER,
                        IFFCO-TOKIO,
                        GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                        SRI. SHANTY TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR,
                        3RD MAIN, 141, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT
                        KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU-85.
                        (POLICY NO.1-1F3UID2D P400 POLICY MEZ 60704,
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876
                                        MFA No. 200270 of 2023


HC-KAR




    VALID FROM 07.06.2020 TO 06.06.2021)

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY V/O DATED 19.01.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W;
    SRI. SUDARSHAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2022 PASSED BY THE ADDL. MACT
& ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, BIDAR IN MVC
NO.316/2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI)

Challenging judgment and award dated 21.03.2022

passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bidar

(for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.316/2021, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel submits that

appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. On

21.02.2021, claimant and her husband were traveling from

Sangolgi on motorcycle no.KA-17/L-7183 on Bidar-Kamthana

road. When they near Bellura Kaman, driver of car no.KA-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876

HC-KAR

38/M-3352 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed

against motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant

sustained fractural injuries to both her legs, ribs etc. Despite

treatment at Government Hospital, Bidar etc., she did not

recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability/loss of

earning capacity. Therefore, she filed claim petition against

owner and insurer of car under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act.

3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed

denying accident, involvement of insured vehicle in accident as

well as age, income and loss of earning capacity of claimant,

tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant

examined herself and Dr.Vijaykumar R.B as PWs.1 and 2.

Exs.P1 to P9 were got marked. Respondents did not lead

evidence.

4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver,

claimant sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning

capacity and was entitled to compensation from insurer as

follows :-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876

HC-KAR

Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering `50,000/-

2 Medical, attendant and incidental charges `18,000/- 3 Loss of basic amenities `15,000/- 4 Medical expenses `21,944/-

5 Loss of earnings `2,41,920/-

6 Laid-up period charges `24,000/-

Total `3,70,864/-

5. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. It

was firstly submitted, claimant had sustained compound

fracture of both tibia and fibula of both legs assessed by PW.2

to have resulted in disability to extent of 23% to right lower

limb and 26.5% to left lower limb. However, tribunal

considered functional disability at 12% which was on lower

side.

6. It was secondly submitted, as on date of accident,

claimant was working as agricultural coolie and earning

`15,000/- per month. However, tribunal considered it at

`12,000/- which was on lower side. It was submitted, tribunal

erred in awarding only `15,000/- towards loss of amenities and

`24,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period. On said

ground, sought enhancement.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876

HC-KAR

7. On other hand, Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel

for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted,

tribunal had taken note of injuries sustained, disability caused

and awarded just compensation under each head separately.

Same did not call for interference and sought for dismissal of

appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned

judgment and award and certified copies of depositions and

exhibits for perusal of this Court.

9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for

enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is -

"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for ?"

10. Same is answered partly in affirmative, for following

reasons:

11. Admittedly, this is a personal injury claim. Since,

insurer has not preferred appeal, findings of tribunal about

occurrence of accident, claimant sustaining injuries/permanent

physical disability and liability of insurer to pay compensation

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876

HC-KAR

are not in dispute. Insofar as monthly income, though claimant

stated that she was working as agricultural coolie and earning

`15,000/- per month, same was not substantiated with any

specific material. In absence, tribunal was justified in assessing

it notionally. But notional income for year 2021 is `14,250/- as

adopted by KSLSA for settlement of cases before Lok-adalat.

Therefore, same has to be considered.

12. Taking note of disability sustained due to injuries in

accident, PW.2 deposed about claimant having sustained 23%

of disability to right lower limb and 26.5% to left lower limb.

13. Perusal of Ex.P6 - disability certificate issued by

PW.2 would indicate restriction of flexion movement of left knee

by 10%, planter flexion by 10% and loss of muscle strength by

15%. Likewise, in case of right lower limb said restriction is

20% at knee and 15% of planter flexion with 10% of muscle

strength. PW.2 has however assessed limb disability at 23% to

right lower limb and 26.5% to left lower limb. There is no

cross-examination of PW.2 by insurer. Since claimant has

sustained disability to both lower limb, it would be appropriate

to consider average of disability assessed as permanent

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876

HC-KAR

physical disability and loss of earning capacity, same would be

24.75%. Thus, compensation towards future loss of income

would be :

`14,250/- x 12 x 14 x 24.75% = `5,92,515/-

Same is awarded to claimant.

14. Normally fractures take about three months to heal.

Since, monthly income is assessed at `14,250/-, claimant

would be entitled to `42,750/- towards loss of income during

laid up period.

15. Tribunal has awarded `21,944/- towards medical

expenses, which would be against bills produced, leaving no

scope for enhancement. Tribunal has awarded `15,000/-

towards loss of amenities. Taking note of fact that claimant had

sustained disability to both lower limbs, same is inadequate and

is enhanced to `30,000/-. Award of `50,000/- towards pain and

suffering and `18,000/- towards food, attendance and other

incidental expenses is not challenged and is sustained. Thus,

total compensation would be as follows :

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3876

HC-KAR

Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering `50,000/-

2 Medical, attendant and incidental charges `18,000/- 3 Loss of basic amenities `30,000/- 4 Medical expenses `21,944/-

5 Loss of earnings `5,92,515/-

6 Laid-up period charges `42,750/-

Total `7,55,209/-

16. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,

Rajasthan v. Smt.Laxmi and others1, claimant is entitled

for interest at rate of 6% per annum. Point for consideration is

answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently,

following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 21.03.2022 passed in MVC no.316/2021 by Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bidar is modified, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of `7,55,209/- as against `3,70,864/- awarded by Tribunal with interest @ 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit excluding for 173 days.