Karnataka High Court
Vishal S/O Dada Lokhande vs Balasaheb S/O Bapusaheb Patil on 8 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
MFA No. 30876 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 30877 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 30876 OF 2012 (MV)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 30877 OF 2012(MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.30876/2012
BETWEEN:
JAKKAPPA
S/O ISHWAR @ ISHWARAPPA GIRIGOUDAR,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT AND PAPER
VENDOR AND AGRIL.,
R/O: AT POST: SHIVANGI,
TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.L.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAMESH AND:
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 1. BALASAHEB S/O BAPUSAHEB PATIL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
A/O: AT POST: RAJAPUR,
TQ: SANGOLA, DIST: SOLAPUR
(MAHARASHTRA STATE).
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PANDARAPUR,
THROUGH THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
HANAMASHETTY BUILDING,
S.S. FRONT ROAD, BIJAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
MFA No. 30876 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 30877 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 30.08.2011 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIM TRIBUNAL NO.VI, BIJAPUR AT BIJAPUR IN M.V.C.
NO.1315/2010, IN SO FOR AS NOT AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.21,25,000/- AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION AND AWARDING ONLY A MEAGER AND INADEQUATE
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,16,000/- OUT OF WHICH THE
RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO PAY 80% COMPENSATION AMOUNT
AND REMAINING 20% IS TO BE RECOVERED FROM INSURER /
OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE. HENCE THE APPELLANT IS
ENTITLED FOR 80% I.E. RS.1,72,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
PER ANNUM THE APPELLANT HEREIN PREFERS THE ABOVE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL.
IN M.F.A.NO.30877/2012
BETWEEN:
VISHAL
S/O DADA LOKHANDE,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT AND PAPER VENDOR AND AGRIL.,
R/O: AT POST: SHIVANGI,
TQ: AND DIST: BIJAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.L.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
MFA No. 30876 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 30877 of 2012
HC-KAR
AND:
1. BALASAHEB S/O BAPUSAHEB PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
A/O: AT POST: RAJAPUR,
TQ: SANGOLA, DIST: SOLAPUR
(MAHARASHTRA STATE).
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PANDARAPUR,
THROUGH THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HANAMASHETTY BUILDING,
S.S. FRONT ROAD, BIJAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING MODIFY THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.08.2011 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM
TRIBUNAL NO.VI, BIJAPUR AT BIJAPUR IN M.V.C.
NO.1375/2010, IN SO FOR AS NOT AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.21,25,000/- AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION AND AWARDING ONLY A MEAGER AND INADEQUATE
COMPENSATION OF RS.90,800/- OUT OF WHICH THE
RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO PAY 80% COMPENSATION AMOUNT
AND REMAINING 20% IS TO BE RECOVERED FROM INSURER /
OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE. HENCE THE APPELLANT IS
ENTITLED FOR 80% I.E. RS.72,640/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
PER ANNUM THE APPELLANT HEREIN PREFERS THE ABOVE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
MFA No. 30876 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 30877 of 2012
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Since, both appeals are arising out of same judgment,
they are clubbed together and taken up for disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 30.08.2011
passed by MACT, No.-VI, Bijapur at Bijapur in MVCs no.1315
and 1375/2010, these appeals are filed.
3. Sri CL Koujalagi, learned counsel submitted that
appeals were by claimants for enhancement of compensation.
It was submitted, at 12:45 p.m. on 18.07.2010, Jakkappa was
riding as pillion on motorcycle bearing no.MH-12/Y-7313 on
Sanglola-Mangalaweda road. Near Maan river bridge, driver of
Jeep no.MH-45/A-7280 drove it in rash and negligent manner
and dashed against motorcycle, causing accident. In said
accident, both riders sustained grievous injuries and were
admitted to hospital. Despite treatment, they sustained
permanent physical disability and consequently, loss of earning
capacity. Therefore, they filed MVCs no.1315 and 1375/2010
respectively against owner and insurer of Jeep.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
4. On contest, wherein owner was placed ex-parte,
insurer opposed claim petitions denying age, occupation,
income, permanent physical disability, loss of earning capacity
as well as negligence on part of driver of Jeep. Tribunal framed
issues and recorded evidence. Claimants examined themselves
and Dr. AA Magi, as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 18.
Respondent did not lead any oral evidence, but copy of
insurance policy was marked with consent as RW-1.
5. On consideration, tribunal held that accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Jeep as
well as rider of motorcycle in ratio 80:20. Tribunal assessed
compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 For pain and suffering `30,000/-
2 For medical and other incidental `52,000/-
expenses
3 For future discomfort and unhappiness `5,000/-
4 Loss of future income due to disability `1,29,500/-
Total `2,16,000/-
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 For pain and suffering `15,000/-
2 For medical and other incidental `3,000/-
expenses
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
3 For future discomfort and unhappiness `8,000/-
4 Loss of future income due to disability `64,800/-
Total `90,800/-
6. In MVC no.1315/2010, it was submitted, claimant
was a student/paper vendor and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m.
However, tribunal considered his monthly income at Rs.3,000/,
which was on lower side. It was submitted, award of Rs.5,000/-
was awarded towards loss of amenities, which was also on
lower side and tribunal did not award any compensation
towards loss of earning during laid up period. Rs.30,000/-
awarded towards pain and suffering is also on lower side. On
above grounds, sought for enhancement.
7. In MVC no.1375/2010, similar grounds were urged.
8. On other hand, Sri Sharanabasappa M Patil, learned
counsel for respondent no.2 opposed appeals. It was
submitted, tribunal had considered injuries sustained and had
awarded just compensation under separate heads, leaving no
scope for enhancement.
9. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
10. From above, since only claimants are in appeal for
enhancement of compensation, common point that would arise
for consideration is
"Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for?"
11. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following
reasons.
12. In MVC no.1315/2010, claimant is said to have
been working as student/paper vendor and earning Rs.6,000/-
p.m. However, same is not substantiated with any specific
evidence. In absence, tribunal assessed income notionally.
Notional income for year 2010 as per chart prepared by KSLSA
is Rs.5,500/-, which has to be considered as his monthly
income. Tribunal noted claimant sustained injuries on left ankle
(10x4x2cm) large wound, contaminated over left ankle on
Antero laleval aspect exposing lower end of tibia out side of
wound, tenderness of dorsum of foot, crushed and avulsed,
distal pulsation present, toe movements not possible, abrasion
over fight knee, X-ray of left ankle shows dislocation of left
distal tibia and fibula joint and grade III compound dislocation
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
of left ankle with tendon injury of dorsum of foot. Other
treatment records would indicate that claimant has taken
treatment and underwent operations. He also examined PW-3,
doctor to substantiate disability. As per Ex.P-15 (Disability
certificate), claimant sustained limb disability to extent of 30 to
35%. But, tribunal considered whole body disability at 20%.
13. Considering facts and circumstances, award of
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering is justified. Even loss of
earning capacity assessed at 20% is justified. Likewise, award
of Rs.52,000/- towards medical expenses, would be in
complete reimbursement of medical bills, would not call for
interference. Claimant has taken in-patient treatment for a
period of 13 days, taking note of same, Rs.10,000/- is awarded
towards food, attendant and other incidental expenses.
14. Normally fractures would take three months to heal.
Considering same as lay off period, Rs.16,500/- is awarded
towards loss of income during laid up period. Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards future discomfort and unhappiness
i.e. loss of amenities and same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
15. Loss of earning capacity of claimant works out to
Rs.2,37,600/- (Rs.5,500/- x 20% x 12 X 18). Thus, total
compensation would be:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 For pain and suffering `30,000/-
2 For medical and other incidental `52,000/-
expenses
3 For future discomfort and unhappiness `25,000/-
4 Food, attendant and other incidental `10,000/-
expenses
5 Loss of income during laid up period `16,500/-
6 Loss of future income due to disability `2,37,600/-
Total `3,71,100/-
16. In MVC no.1375/2010, claimant is said to have
been working as student/paper vendor and earning Rs.6,000/-
p.m. However, same is not substantiated with any specific
evidence. In absence, tribunal assessed income notionally.
Notional income for year 2010 as per chart prepared by KSLSA
is Rs.5,500/-, which has to be considered as his monthly
income. Tribunal noted claimant sustained cut lacerated wound
in between 2nd and 3rd toe and 3rd and 4th toe, dorsum to
planter aspect of right foot measuring 5x2cm, abrasion on right
heel, X-ray of right foot shows fracture of proximal phalanx toe
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
5th right foot and fracture of head of 3rd and 4th metatarsal foot.
He took in-patient treatment for period of 2 days. Considering
same, award of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering would
be justified. Even award of Rs.3,000/- towards medical
expenses would appear to be just and proper. Tribunal
assessed disability at 10%. Re-computation of loss of future
income would be Rs.1,18,000/- (Rs.5,500/- x 10% x 12 x 18).
17. Normally, fractures take 3 months to heal. Since,
claimant sustained fracture of metatarsal, which heal faster, lay
off period should be considered as 2 months and claimant
would be entitled for Rs.11,000/- towards same. Award of
Rs.8,000/- towards loss of amenities is just and proper. Re-
assessed compensation is as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 For pain and suffering `15,000/-
2 For medical and other incidental `3,000/-
expenses
3 For future discomfort and unhappiness `8,000/-
4 Loss of future income due to disability `1,18,800/-
5 Loss of income during laid up period `11,000/-
Total `1,55,800/-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
18. Apportionment liability at ratio of 80:20 by tribunal
is not challenged. Hence, same is maintained. Therefore,
claimant in MVC no.1315/2010 would be entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,96,880/- and in MVC no.1375/2010 for
Rs.1,24,640/-.
19. Consequently, following order:
ORDER
i. Appeals are allowed in part.
ii. Judgment and award dated 30.08.2011 in
MVC nos.1315 and 1375/2010 is modified.
Claimant in MFA no.30876/2012 (MVC
no.1315/2010) would be entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,96,880/- and in MFA
no.30877/2012 (MVC no.1375/2010) would
be entitled for Rs.1,24,640/-.
iii. As per order dated 08.07.2025, claimants
would not be entitled for interest for delayed
period.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3696
HC-KAR
iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit enhanced
compensation with interest before tribunal
within a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
