Karnataka High Court
Ramashetty vs Vishwanath And Anr on 21 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
MFA No. 203030 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 203030 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAMASHETTY
S/O GEMU NAYAK,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR (NOW NIL),
R/O: RANAPUR, TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT SRIDEVI J.TUPPAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VISHWANATH
Digitally signed S/O GANGARAM,
by RAMESH AGE: 40 YEARS,
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
COURT OF R/O: RANAPUR THANDA,
KARNATAKA
TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KLAABURAGI - 585 307.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
IIIRD FLOOR ASAIN ARCADE,
SVP PATEL CHOWK, TIMMAPURI CIRCLE,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
MFA No. 203030 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2024 ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION RS.15,00,000/- AS PRAYED BY THE
APPELLANT HEREIN MVC NO. 1297/2022 BY THE HON'BLE
COURT OF THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ENHANCE THE RATE OF INTEREST
AWARDED FROM 6% TO 9% IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 26.06.2024
passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Kalaburagi (in
short 'tribunal') in MVC no.1297/2022, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Sridevi J Tuppad, learned counsel submitted,
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted, on 05.03.2022, when claimant was walking
towards his land on Chincholi-Chittapur road, driver of Tractor
no.KA-32/TB-1312 drove it in rash and negligent manner and
dashed against claimant, causing accident. In said accident,
claimant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to
hospital. Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully and
sustained permanent physical disability/ loss of earning
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of
MV Act against owner and insurer.
3. On service, owner of offending Tractor did not
appear and was placed ex-parte. Only insurer filed objections
denying age, occupation, income and loss of earning capacity of
claimant. It was also submitted that driver of insured vehicle
was not holding valid and effective driving license and there
was violation of terms and conditions of insurance as well as
claim was excessive. Based on same, tribunal framed issues
and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and
Dr.Pradeep Kumar Natikar as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.P-1 to P15. Insurer did not lead any evidence
4. On consideration, tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by
its driver and claimant had sustained permanent physical
disability/loss of earning capacity and awarded compensation
as under:
Sl.No. Different Heads Compensation
Amount
1 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
2 Attendant, food and Rs.50,000/-
conveyance charges
3 Loss of future income Rs.9,73,500/-
4 Medical expenses Rs.5,25,000/-
5 Loss of income during Rs.45,000/-
treatment
6 Loss of amenities and nutrition Rs.20,000/-
food
Total Rs.16,63,500/-
5. Dissatisfied, present appeal was filed.
6. It was submitted, claimant had sustained
amputation of right leg above knee. Tribunal awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, which was inadequate.
It was submitted, PW-2 had assessed permanent physical
disability at 80%. However, tribunal assessed functional
disability at only 50%, which was inadequate. It also erred in
not adding future prospects as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Mohd.Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional
Manager, UPSRTC1. It was submitted, tribunal was not
justified considering lay off period as only 3 months. It was
further submitted, award of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
(2023) 20 SCC 774
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
amenities was contrary to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.2. It was also
submitted that tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards future medical expenses. On above grounds, sought
for enhancement.
7. On other hand, Sri Subash Mallapur, learned
counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, medical
bills issued by Kamareddy hospital for Rs.3,35,000/- were
produced. As observed by tribunal, claimant had availed
discount of Rs.64,500/- also. Under such circumstances,
tribunal was not justified in awarding Rs.5,25,000/- towards
medical expenses. It was submitted, since there was excess
award under said head, there would be no scope for
enhancement and on above grounds sought for dismissal of
appeal.
8. In reply, it was submitted, apart from hospital bills
for Rs.3,35,000/-, even bills of purchase of medicine were also
produced. Therefore, award towards medical expenses was
justified.
(2011) 1 SCC 343
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
9. Heard counsel, perused judgment and award.
10. From above, only point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for?"
11. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following
reasons.
12. Occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of insured Tractor, claimant sustaining
grievous injuries leading to permanent physical disability/ loss
of earning capacity, insurer's liability to pay compensation are
not in dispute. Claimant sustained Grade-III compound fracture
of right tibia, shaft, middle and upper tibia etc., leading to
amputation of his right leg above knee level. Hon'ble Suprme
Court in case of Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co.
Ltd., reported in 2012 ACJ 28 awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards
pain and suffering in case of amputation. Hence, same is
awarded.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
13. For inpatient of 45 days, tribunal awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards food, attendant and conveyance. Same
appears just and proper and does not call for interference. As
per Ex.P-13 (disability certificate) and deposition of PW-2,
claimant had sustained permanent physical disability to extent
of 80%. Claimant was 53 years aged coolie and amputation of
right leg would effect his earning capacity. In case of use of
artificial limb, disability would reduce to certain extent. Besides,
possibility of earning income by alternative avocation is also
required to be considered. Under above circumstances,
assessment of functional disability at 50% by tribunal appears
to be just and proper. But, as per decision in case of Mohd.
Sabeer (supra) claimant would be entitled for addition of
future prospects to his monthly income. Since, claimant was
said to be aged 53 years, self employed and earning
Rs.14,750/- p.m., 10% has to be added to his monthly income.
and multiplier applicable would be '11'. Hence, compensation
towards future loss of earning is re-assessed at Rs.10,70,850/-
([14,750/- + 10%] x 11 x 12 x 50%).
14. Tribunal awarded Rs.5,25,000/- towards medical
expenses. Though, counsel for insurer sought to dispute same,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
it is required to be rejected for following reasons. Firstly, since
this is claimant's appeal for enhancement and insurer has not
challenged award. Secondly, total medical bills submitted not
only included hospital bills for treatment, but also for
purchasing of medicines, which was not included in hospital
bills. Therefore, award of Rs.5,25,000/- towards medical
expenses is just and proper.
15. Normally in case of amputation of limb, six months
period is considered as lay off period. Hence, claimant would be
entitled for Rs.88,500/- towards same. As per decision in case
of Raj Kumar (supra) award of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
amenities would be grossly inadequate and is enhanced to
Rs.1,50,000/-. Admittedly, claimant has sustained amputation
of right leg above knee. Though, there is no specific evidence
about cost of artificial limb, taking note of need for periodic
maintenance as well as replacement, in absence of specific
material, it is found appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- in lum-
sum towards future medical expenses towards limb. Thus, total
compensation is as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
Sl.No. Different Heads Compensation
Amount
1 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
2 Attendant, food and Rs.50,000/-
conveyance charges
3 Loss of future income Rs.10,70,850/-
4 Medical expenses Rs.5,25,000/-
5 Loss of income during Rs.88,500/-
treatment
6 Loss of amenities and nutrition Rs.1,50,000/-
food
7 Future Medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.21,34,350/-
16. Consequently, following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) Judgment and award dated 26.06.2024
passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT at
Kalaburagi in MVC no.1297/2022 is modified.
Claimant is held entitled for compensation of
Rs.21,34,350/- from insurer with interest at
6% p.a. from date of claim petition, till
deposit.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4093
HC-KAR
iii) Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced
compensation within a period of six weeks.
iv) On deposit, tribunal to deposit 50% of same
in fixed deposit for a period of 5 years and
release remaining 50% in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
