Karnataka High Court

Gousa Patel vs Mansur Patel And Anr on 7 July, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680
                                                     MFA No. 201993 of 2023


                   HC-KAR




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
                                            BEFORE

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201993 OF 2023 (MV-I)
                   BETWEEN:

                       GOUSA PATEL S/O RUKKUM PATEL,
                       AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUILDER,
                       R/O: CHONCHI, NOW AT ISLAMABAD COLONY,
                       RING ROAD, KALABURAGI.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   MANSUR PATEL S/O AJIMA PATEL,
                        AGE: MAJOR,
                        OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF
                        INNOVA BEARING REG.NO.KA-32/N-7799,
                        R/O: NO.2/52, CHONCHI VILLAGE,
                        TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 211.
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI          2.  RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Location: HIGH         THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA              ASIAN PLAZA, NEAR SVP CHOWK,
                       STATION AREA, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                       NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                        THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
                   PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
                   28.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR
                   CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.151/2019
                   BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED
                   FOR.
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680
                                         MFA No. 201993 of 2023


HC-KAR




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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of

learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Challenging judgment and award dated 28.12.2022

passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi, (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC

no.151/2019, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel submitted, appeal

was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was

submitted, on 29.11.2017 when claimant was waiting to cross

road near Madbool cross, driver of car no.KA-32/N-7799 drove

it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant

causing accident. Due to injuries sustained in accident, he was

shifted to P.G.Shah Hospital, Kalaburagi and later to Kothadia

Hospital, Solapur. Despite treatment, he sustained permanent

physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680

HC-KAR

filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,

against owner and insurer of car.

4. On contest, wherein, only insurer filed objections

denying rash and negligent driving by driver of insured vehicle,

age, occupation, income and disability sustained by claimant as

well as alleging violation of policy conditions, tribunal framed

issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and

Dr.Ravi E.Shivaraya as PWs.1 and 2. Exs.P1 to P15 were got

marked. In rebuttal, insurer examined its official as RW.1 and

got marked Exs.R1 and R2.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by

its driver, claimant had sustained permanent physical

disability/loss of earning capacity and was entitled for

compensation from insurer as follows:

1 Pain and sufferings `40,000/- 2 Medical expenses `1,05,771/- 3 Loss of earning during laid up period `30,750/- 4 Loss of future earning disability `3,44,400/- 5 Nutritious food and attendant charges `20,000/- 6 Loss of future amenities and loss of `20,000/-

happiness `5,60,921/-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680

HC-KAR

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

was submitted, though claimant had stated that he was

working as builder earning `25,000/- per month, tribunal erred

in assessing it notionally at `10,250/- only. It was submitted,

accidental injuries had led to amputation of his right limb below

knee. PW.2 had assessed limb disability at 65%. However,

tribunal erred in considering functional disability at 20% only

and sought enhancement.

7. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of Mohd.Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional

Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation1 it was

submitted that future prospects were required to be added to

monthly income even in case of personal injury claims. It was

submitted compensation awarded to other heads namely pain

and suffering, loss of amenities, attendance and loss of income

during laid-up period were also on lower side and sought

enhancement. It was submitted, tribunal had not awarded any

compensation towards future medical expenses for artificial

(2022) 18 S.C.R. 427

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680

HC-KAR

limb, its periodic maintenance and replacement. On above

grounds sought enhancement.

8. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned

counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted,

considering facts and circumstances wherein claimant had

failed to substantiate his monthly income, tribunal had

assessed it notionally and rightly awarded compensation under

various heads. Same was adequate and did not call for

interference.

9. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment

and award.

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

enhancement of compensation, 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:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680

HC-KAR

12. Insofar as monthly income, indeed claimant stated

that he was builder earning more than `25,000/- per month.

However to substantiate same, no material is placed. Neither

his Contractor's licence or contract agreements for construction

of building or income tax assessments are filed. In absence,

tribunal was justified in assessing it notionally. It is seen that

notional income for year 2017 as adopted by KSLSA for

settlement of cases before Lok-adalat being `10,250/-, tribunal

would justified in taking same as his monthly income. It is not

in dispute that accidental injuries had led to amputation of right

lower limb of claimant below knee. In view of amputation,

award of `50,000/- towards pain and suffering would be grossly

inadequate, same is enhanced to `1,50,000/-. Tribunal

awarded `1,05,771/- towards medical expenses which would be

in complete reimbursement of amount for which bills were

produced. Therefore, there would be no scope for

enhancement. Normally, in case of amputation of lower limb,

period of six months is taken as layoff. Therefore, claimant

would be entitled for `61,500/- as against `30,750/- towards

loss of income during period of layoff. Claimant had taken

inpatient treatment for period of 23 days. Award of `20,000/-

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680

HC-KAR

towards food, attendant and conveyance charges appears just

and proper. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj

Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.2, in view of amputation,

tribunal erred in awarding only `20,000/- towards loss of

amenities. Same is enhanced to `1,50,000/-. Taking note of

amputation below knee, which would require artificial limb,

tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future

medical expenses i.e., towards artificial limb. Considering

requirement of maintenance and periodical replacement, it is

appropriate to award lump-sum of `1,00,000/- towards artificial

limb. As noted above, claimant sustained amputation of right

lower limb below knee.

13. PW.2 assessed limb disability at 65%. Claimant is

stated to be a builder and would require to move around climb

up and down upstairs for inspection etc. Therefore, assessment

of functional disability at 20% would not be justified, it would

be appropriate to considered it 50% of loss of earning. As per

decision in Mohd.Sabeer's case (supra) even in personal injury

claims, future prospects has to be added to monthly income.

(2011) 1 SCC 343

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680

HC-KAR

Since claimant was 42 years of age and self-employed, future

prospects at rate of 25% has to be added. Tribunal has applied

correct multiplier by '14', while assessing compensation. Thus,

compensation towards future loss of income has to be re-

computed as follows:

(`10,250/- + 25%) x 12 x 14 x 50% = `10,76,250/-.

14. Thus, claimant is held entitled for re-assessed

compensation under the following heads :

1 Pain and sufferings `1,50,000/- 2 Medical expenses `1,05,771/- 3 Loss of earning during laid up period `61,500/- 4 Loss of future earning disability `10,76,250/- 5 Nutritious food and attendant charges `20,000/- 6 Loss of future amenities and loss of `1,50,000/- happiness

7. Towards artificial limb `1,00,000/-

Total `16,63,521/-

15. Point for consideration is answered partly in

affirmative. Consequently following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part, impugned judgment

and award dated 28.12.2022 passed by II

Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3680

HC-KAR

Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi, in MVC

no.151/2019 is modified. Claimant is held

entitled for total compensation of `16,63,521/-