Karnataka High Court
Bheemarao @ Bheemappa vs Mallikarjun Kadapatti And Anr on 9 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
MFA No. 202648 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202648 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BHEEMARAO @ BHEEMAPPA
S/O SHARANAPPA @ SHANKAR SHINDE,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: PLUMBER, NOW NIL,
R/O: H.NO.302, NEAR RANESH PEER DARGA,
ALAND ROAD, PANDIT DIN DAYAL UPADHYA NAGAR,
ZAFARABAD, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLIKARJUN KADAPATTI
Digitally signed
by RAMESH S/O SOMASHEKHAR,
MATHAPATI AGE: MAJOR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF OCC: OWNER OF EICHER HEAVY GOODS,
KARNATAKA VEHICLE NO.KA-28/C-9911
R/O: GOBAR CHAL, SHAPETGALLI,
INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
SANGEMESHWAR NAGAR
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
MFA No. 202648 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO EXERCISE ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION, CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE LOWER COURT RECORDS AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21-04-2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.217/2020 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
With consent of both parties, matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 21.04.2022
passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for
short 'tribunal') in MVC no.217/2020, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri Sanjay Patil, learned counsel submitted that
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted at 8:30 p.m. on 10.12.2019, when claimant was
riding pillion on motorcycle bearing no.MH-12/JJ-0549 on
Katraj-Kondhawa road, Pune, driver of Lorry no.KA-28/C-9911
drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against
motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
HC-KAR
sustained grievous injuries. Despite taking treatment at Bharati
Hospital and Research Centre, Dhanakawadi, Pune and
Kamareddy Hopsital, Kalaburagi he did not recover fully and
sustained permanent physical disability and consequent loss of
earning capacity. Claimant filed petition under Section 166 of
MV Act against owner and insurer of lorry.
4. Despite service, owner did not appear and was
placed ex-parte. Insurer appeared and filed objections, denying
age, occupation and loss of earning capacity as well as alleged
violation of terms and conditions of policy by insured. Insurer
also opposed claim petition on ground of being excessive.
5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.SB
Kamareddy as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 13.
Respondent did not lead any oral evidence, but, got marked
insurance policy as Ex.R-1 with consent.
6. On consideration, tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry,
claimant sustained permanent physical disability and was
entitled for compensation from insurer as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
HC-KAR
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and suffering `60,000/-
2 Attendant, food and conveyance `12,000/-
charges
3 Loss of future income `19,84,300/-
4 Medical expenditure `2,63,600/-
5 Loss of income during treatment `26,500/-
6 Loss of amenities and nutrition food `30,000/-
Total `23,76,100/-
7. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal.
8. It was submitted, claimant had sustained fracture
on right tibia and amputation of right leg above knee, despite
same, tribunal awarded meager sum of `60,000/- towards pain
and suffering and `30,000/- towards loss of amenities and
requested for enhancement. It was submitted, claimant was
stated to be working as a plumber and earning `18,000/- p.m.
However, tribunal assessed monthly income at `13,250/- p.m.
It was further submitted that tribunal had taken permanent
physical disability at 78% as per assessment of PW-2, but did
not add future prospects as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v.
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
HC-KAR
Corporation1. It was further submitted, award of `12,000/-
towards attendant, food and conveyance charges was also on
lower side, considering that claimant had undergone inpatient
treatment for a period of 30 days. Likewise, even award of
`26,500/- towards loss of income during lay off period is also
on lower side. On above grounds, sought for enhancement.
9. On other hand, Sri Sanjay M Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent opposed appeal. It was submitted, tribunal had
awarded just compensation under separate heads, which do not
call for interference.
10. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award.
11. From above, since, claimant is in appeal only
questioning quantum, only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for?"
12. My answer to point is partly in affirmative for
following reasons.
(2022) 18 S.C.R. 427
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
HC-KAR
13. Claimant stated that he was working as a plumber
and earning `18,000/- p.m. But, he did not substantiate same
with any specific evidence. In absence, tribunal rightly assessed
same at `13,250/-, as adopted by KSLSA for settlement of
cases before Lok Adalath. Therefore, there is no scope for
enhancement. Tribunal referring to Exs.P-5 to 8 i.e. wound
certificate, discharge summary and disability certificate held
that claimant sustained fracture of left tibia and amputation of
right leg above knee, but, awarded only `60,000/- towards pain
and sufferings, which was grossly inadequate. It would be
appropriate to enhance it to `1,50,000/-. Tribunal awarded a
sum of `2,63,300/- towards medical expenses, which is in
complete reimbursement of bills produced. Therefore, there
would be no scope for enhancement. Tribunal awarded
`12,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges.
Considering that claimant was inpatient for a period of 30 days,
same is enhanced to `30,000/-. Taking note of disability
assessed by PW-2, tribunal assessed functional disability at
78%. Taking note of alternative avocation, which would
supplement income and mitigation of physical disability by
wearing artificial limb, assessment loss of earning at 78%
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
HC-KAR
appears just and proper. However, as per ratio laid down in
case of Mohd. Shabir (supra), even in personal injury claims,
claimant would be entitled for addition of future prospects to
his monthly income. Claimant was aged 32 years and self
employed. Hence, addition of future prospects would be 40%
and multiplier would be 16. Thus, computation towards future
loss of earning would be `27,78,048/- [(13,250 + 40%) x 78%
x 12 x 16].
14. Normally in case of amputation of right leg, 6
months period is considered as lay off period, for which
claimant would be entitled for `79,500/-.
15. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar and Another2 claimant would be
entitled for `1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Apart from
above, tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards
future medical expenses, which would be towards artificial limb,
its periodic maintenance and replacement. Therefore, it would
be appropriate to award `1,00,000/- towards same. Thus,
(2011) 1 SCC 343
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
HC-KAR
claimant would be entitled for total compensation of
`35,50,848/- assessed as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and suffering `1,50,000/-
2 Attendant, food and conveyance `30,000/-
charges
3 Loss of future income `27,78,048/-
4 Medical expenditure `2,63,300/-
5 Loss of income during treatment `79,500/-
6 Loss of amenities and nutrition food `1,50,000/-
7 Future medical expenses `1,00,000/-
Total `35,50,848/-
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Judgment and award dated 21.04.2022 passed
by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Kalaburagi in MVC no.217/2020 is modified.
Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed
compensation of ` 35,50,848/- .
iii. Needless to say that claimant is entitled for
interest on said amount at rate of 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till realization.
iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit enhanced
compensation with interest before tribunal within
a period of six weeks.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3734
HC-KAR
Sri Sanjay M Joshi, learned counsel for respondent is
permitted file Vakalath within four weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
