Karnataka High Court
Vaibhav S/O Shantkumar vs Lokesh And Anr on 6 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
MFA No. 201040 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201040 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VAIBHAV S/O SHANT KUMAR
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: PRATAP NAGAR,
UDGIR ROAD, NAUBAD,
BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LOKESH S/O CHANDRAKANTH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SAINAGAR NAUBAD,
BIDAR, BIDAR - 585 401.
2. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGD. AND HEAD OFFICE,
PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK,
TOWER A, 15TH FLOOR, G.K. MARG,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013.
MATHAPATI REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: HIGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2021 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., AND
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., AT BIDAR IN MVC NO.215/2019 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL THEREBY ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION RS.1,86,120 TO RS.11,25,000/- AS CLAIMED
IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
MFA No. 201040 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 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 06.03.2021
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional
MACT, Bidar, in MVC no.215/2019, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel submitted that this
appeal was filed by claimant seeking for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted that on 01.01.2019 at 10.00
p.m., claimant was walking near Samudaya Bhavan, Bidar,
when rider of motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-38/V-7260
rode it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
claimant. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries like
fracture of left mandible, fracture of Zygomatic Arch, fracture
of Styloid process and fracture of Maxilla. Despite taking
treatment at Government Hospital, Bidar, and Guru Nanak
Hospital, Bidar, he did not recover fully. He also took treatment
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
HC-KAR
in Hospital at Hyderabad. But sustained physical disability and
consequent loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
4. On contest by filing objections, Tribunal framed
issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P21.
Respondents did not lead any evidence.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by motorcycle
rider, claimant had sustained injuries leading to disability and
therefore, claimant was entitled for compensation. Since
vehicle was insured, it held insurer liable to pay compensation.
It awarded compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards pain suffering Rs.10,000/-
2 Towards medical expenses Rs.1,43,120/-
3 Towards Attendant, Conveyance, Rs.5,000/-
Nourishing Food and other
incidental charges
4 Towards loss of income during Rs.18,000/-
laid-up period
5 Towards loss of future income on -NIL-
account of permanent disability
6 Towards loss of amenities, life Rs.10,000/-
comforts and expectancy of life
Total Rs.1,86,120/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
HC-KAR
6. Not satisfied with same, claimant was in appeal.
7. It was submitted though accident occurred in year
2019 and claimant had stated that his monthly income was
Rs.15,000/-, Tribunal considered it at Rs.9,000/-. Since
notional income for year 2019 was Rs.13,250/- per month,
same was required to be considered. It was submitted that
claimant sustained multiple fractures including fracture of skull
and mandible which were grievous. Therefore, award of
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering was inadequate. It was
submitted that claimant had taken treatment as inpatient for a
period of 08 days. Hence, award of Rs.5,000/- towards
attendant, conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental
charges was inadequate. Since claimant sustained fracture,
award of compensation towards laid-up period was also
inadequate. Claimant had sustained multiple fractures,
resulting in permanent disability, award of Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of amenities was inadequate and sought enhancement.
8. Learned counsel further submitted merely on
ground that claimant had not examined doctor or produced
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
HC-KAR
disability certificate, Tribunal was not justified in denying
compensation towards loss of future income. On said grounds
also, sought for allowing appeal.
9. On other hand, Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for
respondent no.2-insurer sought to oppose appeal. It was
submitted that Tribunal had rightly assessed nature of injuries
sustained and awarded adequate compensation. Since claimant
did not examine doctor, claimant was not entitled for future
loss of income.
10. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment
and award and records.
11. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement of compensation while insurer has accepted
award, point that would arise for consideration is:
Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement
of compensation as sought for?
12. From above it is seen, there is no dispute about
accident involving insured vehicle, claimant sustaining grievous
injuries and liability of insurer to pay compensation. While
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
HC-KAR
passing impugned award, Tribunal considered two months as
laid-up period and awarded Rs.18,000/- towards same which
would indicate that monthly income assessed was at Rs.9,000/.
Since accident occurred in year 2019, even in absence of proof
of income, notional income to be considered, Rs.13,250/- ought
to be considered. Therefore, compensation towards loss of
income during laid-up period would be Rs.26,500/-.
13. Taking note of fact that claimant sustained several
fractures i.e., fracture of left mandible, fracture of Zygomatic
Arch, fracture of Styloid process and fracture of Maxilla, award
of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering is grossly
inadequate, it would be appropriate to enhance it to
Rs.50,000/-.
14. Taking note of fact of total amount towards medical
bills submitted in light of treatment records, Tribunal awarded
Rs.1,43,120/- towards medical charges, same would not call for
enhancement.
15. Claimant has taken in-patient treatment for 8 days
at Bidar. He has also stated that he has taken treatment at
Hyderabad. Therefore, award of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
HC-KAR
conveyance, nourishing food and other incidental charges
would be inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance it to
Rs.15,000/-.
16. Admittedly, claimant has not examined doctor to
establish suffering of permanent physical disability or loss of
earning capacity. In absence of specific evidence and as
fractures sustained by claimant to skull and mandible which
without specific evidence of Neurosurgeon or Dentist, there
cannot be any presumption about same resulting in loss of
earning capacity. Under such circumstances, Tribunal would be
justified in denying compensation towards future loss of
income. However, notional award of Rs.10,000/- towards loss
of amenities etc., would not be justified. Taking note of fact
that claimant was only 19 yeas old, same is enhanced to
Rs.35,000/-. Thus, total compensation would be:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards pain suffering Rs.50,000/-
2 Towards medical expenses Rs.1,43,120/-
3 Towards Attendant, Conveyance, Rs.15,000/-
Nourishing Food and other
incidental charges
4 Towards loss of income during Rs.26,500/-
laid-up period
5 Towards loss of future income on -NIL-
account of permanent disability
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2903
HC-KAR
6 Towards loss of amenities, life Rs.35,000/-
comforts and expectancy of life
Total Rs.2,69,620/-
17. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above.
18. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimant is held entitled for total compensation
of Rs.2,69,620/- as against Rs.1,86,120/-
awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till
realization.
iii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before
Tribunal within a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NB,MSR
