Karnataka High Court
Siddharameshwara Swamiji Hiremath vs Abeda S/O Ishad on 21 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
MFA No. 100592 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100592 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDHARAMESHWARA SWAMIJI HIREMATH
S/O. SIDDHARAMESWAMY,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: RELIGIOUS
PREACHING AND MATHADIPATHI OF
SHRI SIDDHARAMESHWAR SAMSHAN
HIREMATH ALSO AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PADMAJA S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN 1. ABEDA S/O. ISHAD,
KATTIMANI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF
Location: HIGH
COURT OF LORRY NO.GJ-18/X-8657,
KARNATAKA
R/O: GOURA POST, JATATASEEL,
TARGAD ROAD, MATUR-281 001,
UTTAR PRADESH.
2. M/S. KATARIA TRANSPORT COMPANY
(GUJARAT) PVT. LTD.,
OPP. MILAN SHOPPING CENTER,
N.H. NO.8, AT: CHHATRAL, TQ: KALOL,
DIST: GANDHINAGAR-382010, GUJARAT,
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REGN.NO.GJ-18/X-8657)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
MFA No. 100592 of 2017
HC-KAR
3. THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, HOTEL PRIYADARSHINI COMPOUND,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: BALLARI.
4. SHARANAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA GASATTI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
OF CAR NO.KA-01/MC-2886,
R/O: YELBURGA-583 236,
TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
5. VAGEESH PANDIT
S/O. SIDDARAMSWAMY HIREMATH,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
R/O: YELBURGA-583 236,
DIST: KOPPAL.
6. MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBBALLI-580029, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT, YELBURGA, DATED 26.11.2016 IN MVC NO.40/2012,
AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 17.06.2025, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
MFA No. 100592 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND)
Heard Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri, learned counsel
appearing for Sri S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for
respondent No.3, Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.4 and 5, and Sri G.N. Raichur, learned
counsel for respondent No.6.
2. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner-
appellant challenging the judgment and award dated
26.11.2016 passed in M.V.C. No.40/2012 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Yelburga (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal').
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act')
seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
traffic accident that occurred on 19.11.2010, involving a
car bearing registration No.KA-01/MC-2886 and a lorry
bearing registration No.GJ-18/X-8657. In the said
accident, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. As per
the averments in the claim petition, the petitioner is the
owner of 100 acres of agricultural land, running
educational institutions, and was earning more than
Rs.50,000/- per month.
4. Upon service of notice, respondent No.3-the
Insurance Company filed its statement of objections,
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The
involvement of the insured vehicle, the liability of the
insurer, and the possession of a valid and effective driving
licence by the driver were specifically disputed. The
respondent also denied the claimant's asserted monthly
income, the expenditure allegedly incurred, as well as the
nature and extent of the disability claimed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
5. Respondent No.6, while denying the averments
made in the claim petition, specifically disputed the
insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-01/MC-2886. The injuries sustained by
the claimant, the medical expenses incurred, and the
extent of disability were also denied. Additionally, the
respondent questioned whether the driver held a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
Respondent No.5, while partially admitting the claim
averments, disputed the quantum of compensation
claimed. While admitting the ownership of the vehicle
bearing registration No.KA-01/MC-2886, it was contended
that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.6,
and therefore, any liability arising out of the accident
ought to be fastened on the insurer. It was further
contended that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the lorry involved in the incident.
6. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and
one more witness as PW.2, and produced 198 documents,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P198. The
respondents examined 2 witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2,
and produced 5 documents, which were marked as
Exhibits R1 to R5.
7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the
evidence on record, awarded compensation in a sum of
Rs.9,48,967/-. While computing the compensation, the
Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 45% and, for
the purpose of calculation, considered 1/3rd of the said
disability. The claimant's monthly income was taken at
Rs.20,000/-. The tribunal awarded compensation under
various other heads.
8. Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri, learned counsel for
Sri S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that prior to the accident, the
petitioner was serving as the Mathadheesha of a Math.
Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, though the
petitioner is able to manage the administrative affairs of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
the Math, he is unable to personally supervise the
agricultural land. Consequently, he has been compelled to
engage others for supervision, thereby incurring additional
expenditure. It is contended that, since the petitioner's
income is ascertainable, adoption of notional income by
the Tribunal was not justified. It is further submitted that
the petitioner was earning Rs.50,000/- per month, and
that even this income has been adversely affected due to
the injuries. Learned counsel also contends that the
petitioner has suffered mental disability as a consequence
of the accidental injuries. It is submitted that disability is
to be assessed at 100%.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer
submits that the petitioner was only the Mathadhipathi of
the Math, and that all the properties, including the
agricultural land, belonged to the Math. It is contended
that the Math was not paying any remuneration to the
petitioner; hence, there is no actual loss of income. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has continued to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
function as Mathadhipathi, and the injuries sustained in
the accident have not deprived him of or obstructed him
from discharging his duties in that capacity. The
contention that the petitioner has suffered mental
disability and is unable to function as Mathadhipathi is also
denied, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner
himself deposed before the Tribunal.
10. Considered the submissions of learned counsels
for the parties and perused the record.
11. The occurrence of the accident on 19.11.2010
involving the car bearing registration No.KA-01/MC-2886
and the lorry bearing registration No.GJ-18/X-8657 is not
in dispute. The fact that the petitioner sustained injuries in
the said accident is also undisputed. The Tribunal has held
respondent Nos.3 and 6-the Insurance Companies liable
for payment of compensation. As the Insurance
Companies have not preferred any appeal challenging the
finding on liability, no further discussion on that aspect is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
warranted. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to
the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner and
the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
12. The petitioner has claimed that he owns
approximately 100 acres of agricultural land and earns
Rs.50,000/- per month. However, no documentary
evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim of
ownership of 100 acres of land or the income of
Rs.50,000/- per month. It is a settled position in law that,
in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be
taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the Tribunal,
assessed the monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. As the
insurer has not challenged the said finding in appeal, the
monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal is accepted.
13. The petitioner is seeking to have the disability
assessed at 100%. It is submitted that the head injuries
sustained have resulted in an Organic Mental Disorder
secondary to Traumatic Brain Injury, which is stated to be
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
permanent in nature. The Tribunal's assessment of whole
body disability at 45% is challenged as being without any
proper basis. However, the evidence on record is not
sufficient to accept the petitioner's claim regarding the
extent of disability. It is a settled position of law that
whole body disability alone cannot form the basis for
awarding compensation. In appropriate cases, functional
disability is to be considered, which may vary from the
whole body disability depending on the nature of the
claimant's occupation. The assessment of functional
disability is subjective and depends upon the facts of each
case, the nature of work performed by the claimant, and
the extent to which the injuries have impaired the
claimant's ability to carry out such work. In some
instances, the functional disability may exceed the
assessed whole body disability, and in other cases, it may
be less.
14. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to
be the Mathadhipathi of a Math, entrusted with its
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
administration and the supervision of its lands. It is an
admitted fact that the petitioner has continued to function
as the Mathadhipathi even after the accident. While it is
the petitioner's case that the injuries have caused some
hindrance in performing his duties to the same extent as
prior to the accident, no cogent evidence has been placed
on record to establish ownership of 100 acres of
agricultural land. Even assuming such ownership, there is
no evidence to demonstrate any actual loss suffered from
agricultural activities as a consequence of the injuries
sustained in the accident.
15. The claim of 100% disability cannot be
accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner
himself entered the witness box and deposed as PW.1
before the Tribunal. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that
the petitioner has continued to discharge his duties as the
Mathadhipathi. If the petitioner had indeed suffered the
extent of disability as claimed, the situation would have
been otherwise. Thirdly, there is no evidence on record to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
demonstrate how the alleged disability has affected the
petitioner's earning capacity. A mere reduction in the
quality or quantity of services rendered to the Math cannot
be made the basis for awarding compensation to the
petitioner. In such an event, it would be the Math that has
suffered the loss, and such loss cannot be considered for
the purpose of awarding compensation to the petitioner in
his individual capacity. The Tribunal, based on the
evidence on record and keeping in view the concept of
functional disability, has rightly assessed the disability at
15%. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said
finding.
16. Insofar as the compensation awarded under
other heads is concerned, the sum of R.27,500/- awarded
towards attendant charges, considering the fact that the
petitioner was an inpatient for more than 25 days, appears
to be on the lower side. Hence, one month's income, i.e.,
Rs.20,000/-, is added to the said amount, making the total
Rs.47,500/- under this head. The Tribunal has awarded
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
Rs.5,01,467/- towards medical expenses, based on the
bills produced, which is justified. Similarly, the
compensation awarded under various other heads such as
future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental shock,
travel expenses, and incidental charges is also found to be
appropriate and calls for no interference.
17. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the heads of nourishment, loss of
amenities, loss of expectation of life, and loss of income
during the laid-up period. Considering that the petitioner
has suffered 45% whole body disability and was an
inpatient for 25 days, it is evident that he would have
required nourishing care during the recovery period.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the
head of nourishment. Having regard to the fact that the
petitioner was hospitalised for 25 days and has sustained
45% disability, he is also entitled to compensation under
the head of loss of amenities, which is quantified at
Rs.30,000/-. The medical evidence on record indicates
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability,
which would impair his ability to lead life in the manner he
did prior to the accident. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
to compensation under the head of loss of expectation of
life, which is assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner was
an inpatient for a period of 25 days, and his monthly
income has been taken at Rs.20,000/-. Considering the
nature of injuries sustained, it is reasonable to infer that
the petitioner would have been incapacitated from
attending to his duties for at least two months following
his discharge from the hospital. Accordingly, he is entitled
to compensation for a total period of three months under
the head of loss of income during the laid-up period, which
is quantified at Rs.60,000/-.
18. Accordingly, the total compensation is
re-assessed as under:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
Sl. Particulars Compensation Enhanced
No. awarded by the compensation
Tribunal (in (in Rs.)
Rs.)
1. Compensation for 1,25,000/- 1,25,000/-
disability.
2. Attendant charges 27,500/- 47,500/-
3. Operation and 5,01,467/- 5,01,467/-
medical expenses
4. Pain and suffering 25,000/- 25,000/-
5. Mental shock 25,000/- 25,000/-
6. Travelling expenses 20,000/- 20,000/-
7. General damages 75,000/- 75,000/-
8. Future expenses 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
9. Operation future 50,000/- 50,000/-
charges
10. Nourishment charges - 30,000/-
11. Loss of amenities - 30,000/-
12. Loss of expectation - 50,000/-
of life
Loss of income - 60,000/-
during laid up period
Total 9,48,967/- 11,38,967/-
19. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.11,38,967/- as against
Rs.9,48,967/- awarded by the Tribunal.
20. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
(ii) The impugned the judgment and award
dated 26.11.2016 passed in
M.V.C.No.40/2012 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T.,
Yelburga, is modified.
(iii) The appellant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.11,38,967/- as
against Rs.9,48,967/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
(iv) The enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety
thousand only) shall be paid with
interest at 8% p.a. by the respondents-
Insurance Companies within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment.
(v) The compensation amount shall be
released in favour of the appellant as
per the judgment and award of the
Tribunal.
(vi) The order of the Tribunal with regard
to investment is maintained.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB
HC-KAR
Registry shall transmit the Trial Court Records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
CT: UMD
