Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthi W/O Hanumanagouda vs Prakash S/O Rajappa Dakulagi And Ors on 2 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
MFA No. 202878 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202878 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HANUMANTHI
W/O HANUMANAGOUDA,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI.,
R/O: NUGADONI-HOSUR VILLAGE,
TQ: MANVI,
NOW AT ASHAPUR ROAD,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRAKASH
Digitally signed S/O RAJAPPA DAKULAGI,
by NIJAMUDDIN AGE: 37 YEARS,
JAMKHANDI
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REG NO. KA 39/5094,
KARNATAKA R/O: MUGANOOR VILLAGE,
TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
2. BHUMANNA
S/O SOMANNA,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING
NO. KA 39/5094,
R/O: JEROLLI VILLAGE, TQ: ALAND,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 314.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
MFA No. 202878 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGD OFFICE, IFFCO SADAN, C-1,
DIST: CENTRE, SAKETE, NEW DELHI,
THROUGH BR. MANAGER,
IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SRI SHARANA ASSOCIATES, L COMPLEX,
SHOP NO.G1, OPP, GANDHINAGAR,
KALABURAGI - 585 104 DIST: KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V., ACT,
PRAYING TO ENHANCE AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFY THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR IN MVC
NO.359/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
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 04.01.2022
passed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur,
in MVC no.359/2019, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel submitted
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted at 4.30 p.m., on 18.09.2018, when she along
with her husband was proceeding on motorcycle no.KA-36/EQ-
2809 on Lingasugur-Gurugunta road, driver of lorry no.KA-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
HC-KAR
39/5094 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant
sustained grievous injuries and admitted to hospital. Despite
taking treatment, she did not recover fully and sustained
permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, she filed claim petition under Section 166 of
M.V.Act, against driver, owner and insurer of lorry.
3. On contest, wherein owner and insurer of offending
vehicle filed separate objections denying accident due to sole
negligence of lorry, alleging contributory negligence on part of
rider of motorcycle, denying liability on ground of violation of
policy conditions etc. Tribunal framed issues and recorded
evidence. Claimant examined herself and Dr.Mahantesh Akki as
PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. Insurer examined
its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver,
claimant had sustained permanent physical disability and loss
of earning capacity, vehicle was insured and therefore insurer
was liable to pay compensation assessed by it as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
HC-KAR
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and agony Rs.1,25,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,90,000/-
3 Food, conveyance and nourishment Rs.20,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid off period Rs.47,000/-
5 Loss of future income Rs.11,98,500/-
6 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.16,30,500/-
Rs.
5. Dissatisfied with award, claimant was in appeal.
6. It was firstly submitted claimant had sustained
crush injury to left upper limb, degloving of skin from palm till
elbow, loss of muscles etc., apart from fracture of ribs and ulna
of left hand. However, tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,000/- only
towards pain and suffering. It was further submitted though
claimant had stated she had taken in patient treatment for a
period of six months, tribunal awarded inadequate
compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. It
was submitted award of Rs.50,000/- only towards loss of
amenities when due to crush injury, there was fusion of skin
and claimant was unable to use left hand. Tribunal erred in not
awarding any compensation towards loss of disfigurement as
claimant was 26 years old woman. It was further submitted,
tribunal assessed functional disability at 50% even when PW.2
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
HC-KAR
had assessed disability at 90% and had not added future
prospects to monthly income. On said grounds, sought
enhancement.
7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for respondent no.2-insurer opposed appeal. It was
submitted tribunal had taken note of facts and circumstances of
case and material on record and awarded just compensation
separately under each heads leaving no scope for
enhancement.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and award and certified copies of pleadings,
deposition and exhibits made available for perusal by learned
counsel for appellant.
9. From above, since this is an appeal by claimant for
enhancement of compensation while insurer has accepted
award, only point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for?
10. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative, for following reasons:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
HC-KAR
11. Though claimant stated that she was 26 years of
age working as tailor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, since
it was not substantiated, tribunal assessed it notionally at
Rs.11,750/- which is inconsonance with notional income
adopted by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for
settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Though claimant stated
that she had lost earning for six months period during which
she took treatment, tribunal awarded Rs.47,000/- only. Taking
note of assertion and in absence of any contrary evidence and
since claimant is unable to use faculties of her left hand due to
degloving and fusion of skin, it would be appropriate to
consider six months as period of lay-off. Thus, claimant would
be entitled for Rs.70,500/- towards same.
12. Taking note of injuries sustained, tribunal awarded
Rs.1,25,000/- towards pain and agony. As it does not appear to
be grossly inadequate, there would be no scope for
interference.
13. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,90,000/- towards
medical expenses in complete re-imbursement of bills
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
HC-KAR
produced. Therefore, there would be no scope for
enhancement.
14. Taking note of inpatient for period of 27 days,
award of Rs.20,000/- towards food, conveyance and other
incidental expenses would be on lower side, same is enhanced
to Rs.35,000/-.
15. PW.2 has assessed limb disability at 90%. Taking
note of contents of Ex.P7-discharge certificate and Exs.P12 and
13-photographs and finding that claimant is unable to use
faculties of her left upper limb, tribunal assessed functional
disability at 50%. Taking note of possibility of earning by
alternative avocation, assessment by tribunal of functional
disability appears just and proper. However, as per decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd.Sabeer @ Shabir
Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC1 there has to be
addition of future prospects even in case of personal injury
claims. Since claimant was 26 years age, self-employed 40%
has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, future loss of
income would be:
(2023)20 SCC 774
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
HC-KAR
Rs.11,750 + 40% x 12 x 17 = Rs.16,77,900/-
16. Taking note of young age of claimant and fact that
claimant is lady, tribunal ought to have awarded compensation
towards disfigurement, loss of marriage prospects etc. In facts
and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards same.
17. Taking note of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.2, award of
Rs.50,000/- only towards loss of amenities would be grossly
inadequate, fusion of left hand equals amputation. Therefore,
award towards loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-.
Thus, total compensation would be:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and agony Rs.1,25,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,90,000/-
3 Food, conveyance and nourishment Rs.35,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid off period Rs.70,500/-
5 Loss of future income Rs.16,77,900/-
6 Loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/-
7 Loss of disfigurement and etc. Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.23,48,400/-
Rs.
(2011) 1 SCC 343
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576
HC-KAR
18. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Judgment and award dated 04.01.2022 passed by
Prl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur,
in MVC no.359/2019, is modified.
iii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed
compensation of Rs.23,48,400/- as against
Rs.16,30,500/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at
6% per annum from date of claim petition till
deposit.
iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before Tribunal
within a period of six weeks.
v. On deposit, conditions imposed by tribunal for
deposit and release shall apply to enhanced
compensation proportionately.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR
