Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Ullesh on 24 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
MFA No. 201748 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 202079 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201748 OF 2025 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202079 OF 2025
IN M.F.A.NO.201748/2025
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVL. OFFICE SITUATED AT D.NO.12-10-89/1,
1ST FLOOR ANAGHA COMPLEX,
NEAR CHANDRAMPULESHWAR CHOWK,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MOHD ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAMESH AND:
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. ULLESH S/O HULIGAPPA,
KARNATAKA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PLUMBER WORK,
R/O: SIDRAMAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 128.
2. UDAYKUMAR S/O VENKATESH,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: RIDER CUM OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE
REGN. NO.KA-36/EP-9058,
R/O: H.NO.155, SIRAMPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
MFA No. 201748 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 202079 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN MVC NO.643/2022 BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT RAICHUR, RECALL THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 21.01.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO.643/2022 BY THE III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAICHUR, AND
MODIFY REDUCING THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.202079/2025
BETWEEN:
ULLESH
S/O HULIGAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: PLUMBER WORK,
R/O: SIDRAMAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 128.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA B. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UDAYKUMAR
S/O VENKATESH,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: RIDER CUM OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE
REGN. NO.KA-36/EP-9058,
R/O: H.NO.155, SIRAMPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: RAICHUR - 584 128.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVL. OFFICE SITUATED AT D.NO.12-10-89/1,
1ST FLOOR ANAGHA COMPLEX,
NEAR CHANDRAMPULESHWAR CHOWK,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHD ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
MFA No. 201748 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 202079 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY
SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.01.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAICHUR IN
M.V.C.NO.643/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE MFA'S, 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 21.01.2025
passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur
(for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.643/2022, these appeals are
filed by both claimant and insurer. While MFA no.201748/2025
is filed by insurer challenging award on quantum, MFA
no.202079/2025 is filed by claimant for enhancement of
compensation.
2. Brief facts as stated are that, on 16.10.2022
claimant was pillion rider on motorcycle no.KA-36/EP-9058.
When it was on Raichur-Bijanagera road, rider rode it in rash
and negligent manner, due to which it skidded, claimant fell
down and sustained injuries. Despite admitted to hospital and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
HC-KAR
taking treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained
permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of motorcycle.
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all counts, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and Dr.Suman NV as PWs.1 and 2.
Exs.P.1 to P.13 were got marked. Official of insurer was
examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 & R2 got marked.
4. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle by its
rider, claimant sustained injury/permanent physical disability
and was entitled for compensation from insurer as follows :-
1. Loss of future income Rs.4,75,776/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.52,117/-
4. Attendant, transportation and misc. expenses Rs.59,600/-
5. Loss of amenities & nutrition food Rs.50,000/-
6. Medical expenses Rs.1,02,744/-
Total Rs.7,90,237/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
HC-KAR
5. Dissatisfied with assessment, both claimant and
insurer were in appeal.
6. Sri Mohd.Abdul Qayyum, learned counsel for insurer
submitted that claimant sustained fracture of shaft of right
femur assessed by PW.2 to have caused 25% disability.
Tribunal considered functional disability at 12% and added
future prospects to monthly income even in injury case. It was
submitted even award of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.52,117/- towards loss of income during laid-up
period, Rs.59,600/- towards incidental expenses, Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of amenities and Rs.60,000/- towards future
medical expenses were on higher side and sought reduction of
compensation.
7. On other hand, Sri Sanganagouda V Biradar,
learned counsel for claimant/appellant opposed insurer's appeal
and sought enhancement. It was submitted as per opinion of
PW.2, claimant sustained limb disability of 25% due to
restriction of movement of hip. Therefore assessment of
functional disability at 12% was on lower side and sought
enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
HC-KAR
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and certified copies of deposition and
exhibits made available for perusal of this Court by learned
counsel for claimant/appellant.
9. From above, since both insurer as well as claimant
are questioning assessment of compensation, point that would
arise for consideration is:
"Whether assessment of compensation by tribunal calls
for modification?"
10. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following
reasons:
11. From above, occurrence of accident due to rash and
negligent riding of insured motorcycle by its rider, claimant
sustaining injuries/permanent physical disability and insurer
being liable to pay compensation are not in dispute. Claimant
stated that he was 32 years of age working as plumber and
earning Rs.30,000/- per month. As same was not
substantiated, tribunal rightly assessed monthly income at
Rs.14,750/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
HC-KAR
12. Claimant sustained fracture of lower 1/3rd of right
femur as per Ex.P5-wound certificate and Ex.P10-disability
certificate. PW.2 examined claimant and assessed limb
disability at 25%. Perusal of Ex.P10 would indicate that PW.2
had assessed disability due to restriction of movement of hip.
Taking note of fact that fracture sustained was to lower 1/3rd of
right femur, it would be difficult to accept said fracture causing
restriction of movement of hip especially without explanation by
PW.2. In absence of same, assessment of functional disability
at 12% by tribunal would appear just and proper.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram v.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited and Another1, has held there has to be addition of
future prospects to monthly income even in personal injury
claims involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement, while dealing with case of paraplegia. Decisions
referred to therein were cases of amputation etc. implying that
future prospects have to be added in personal injury claims
where disability assessed is substantial. Since disability
(2023) 3 SCC 439
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
HC-KAR
assessed is at 12% only, addition of future prospects would not
be justified. Thus, compensation towards loss of future income
would be:
Rs.14,750/- x 12% x 16 x 12 = Rs.3,39,840/-
14. Claimant had sustained fracture of right femur. This
Court, normally awards Rs.25,000/- for major fractures and
Rs.15,000/- towards minor fractures. Under circumstances,
award of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering would be
excessive and requires reduction to Rs.30,000/-.
15. Normally fractures take about three months to heal.
Considering same as period of lay-off, claimant would be
entitled to Rs.44,250/- as against Rs.52,117/- awarded by
tribunal.
16. Claimant took in-patient treatment for 16 days.
While assessment by tribunal at Rs.600/- per day towards food
nourishment etc, may not be excessive, award of Rs.50,000/-
towards conveyance and attendance would be excessive,
unsustainable and without basis. It is found appropriate to
reduce it to Rs.20,000/- in total.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
HC-KAR
17. Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
amenities. When claimant has sustained one fracture and
suffered physical disability at 12%, award would be excessive
and therefore, reduced to Rs.30,000/-.
18. Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- towards future
medical expenses. Though, PW.2 stated about requirement of
one more surgery for removal of implants, normally, cost of
same is Rs.30,000/-. Thus after reduction of Rs.30,000/-,
compensation towards medical expenses and future medical
expenses would reduce to Rs.72,744/-. Thus, total
compensation would be:
1. Loss of future income Rs.3,39,840/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.44,250/-
4. Attendant, transportation and miss. expenses Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of amenities & nutrition food Rs.30,000/-
6. Medical expenses Rs.72,744/-
Total Rs.5,36,834/-
Rs.5,36,834/-
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4205
HC-KAR
19. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) MFA no.201748/2025 filed by Insurer is
allowed in part.
(ii) MFA no.202079/2025 filed by claimant is
dismissed.
(iii) Impugned judgment and award dated
21.01.2025 passed by III Additional Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur in MVC
no.643/2022, is modified;
(iv) Claimant is held entitled for reduced
compensation of Rs.5,36,834/- as against
Rs.7,90,237/- with interest at 6% p.a., from
date of claim petition till deposit.
(v) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR
