Karnataka High Court
Shekhappa S/O Parasappa Shindhe vs Balkrishna Dairy Industries Pvt. Ltd., ... on 9 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
MFA No. 201221 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201221 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHEKHAPPA S/O PARASAPPA SHINDHE,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORK,
R/O: CHADACHAN,
TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT RAM NAGAR,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALKRISHNA DAIRY INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
(OWNER OF THE 407 NO.MH-12/LT-0418)
R/O: 86/2B/1, A/P: MANJARI BK.,
TQ: HAVELI, DIST: PUNE,
MAHARASHTRA STATE - 411 048.
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
MATHAPATI THE IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Location: HIGH 2ND FLOOR, SHRI SHANTI TOWER EAST OF
COURT OF N.G.E.G. LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALURU - 84.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FO R2;
V/O DATED 28.01.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND MODIFY JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
COURT OF III-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, VIJAYAPURA, AT: VIJAYAPUR
IN M.V.C.NO.1317/2015 DATED 04.02.2019 AND BE PLEASED TO
ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED
FOR BY THE APPELLANT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
MFA No. 201221 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST 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 04.02.2019
passed by III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal No.XII, Vijayapur, in MVC no.1317/2015, this
appeal is filed.
3. Brief facts as stated in memorandum of appeal are
that, in accident that occurred on 31.08.2015, claimant riding
on motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-28/EG-2770
sustained grievous injuries when driver of tempo bearing
registration no.MH-12/LT-0418 came from backside and dashed
against motorcycle. Claimant sustained head injury and
fracture to his right hand. Despite taking treatment at
Gangamai Hospital, Solapur and undergoing operation for
insertion of implants, he sustained permanent physical
disability. Claimant was doing mason work and unable to do
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
HC-KAR
same. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of offending
tempo.
4. On contest, Tribunal farmed issues and recorded
evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and examined
Dr.Ashok S/o Ramsingh Nayak as PW.2 and got marked
documents as Exs.P1 to P18. On other hand, respondents
examined two witnesses and got marked documents as Exs.R1
to R4.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured tempo by
its driver and therefore, respondents were liable to pay
compensation to claimant. It assessed monthly income of
claimant at Rs.7,000/-, loss of earning capacity at 10% and
awarded compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards injury, pain and Rs. 15,000/-
sufferings
2 Towards medical expenses Rs.1,25,618/-
3 Towards loss of income due to Rs.1,34,400/-
permanent physical disability
4 Towards food and nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
5 Towards attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-
6 Towards conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
HC-KAR
7 Towards loss of amenities and Rs. 15,000/-
future unhappiness
Total Rs.3,20,018/-
Rounded off to Rs.3,20,000/-
6. Not satisfied with same, claimant is in appeal.
7. Grounds urged in memorandum of appeal would
reveal that claimant is dissatisfied with assessment of monthly
income, loss of earning capacity, inadequate compensation
towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, failure to award
compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period and
inadequate compensation towards loss of amenities, food,
nourishment and attendant charges etc.
8. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for
respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, claimant
had failed to justify monthly income with any material. In
absence of same, it was assessed notionally. After taking note
of medical evidence, it had assessed loss of earning capacity
and award was just and proper.
9. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment
and award.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
HC-KAR
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. Insofar as monthly income, claimant has stated that
he was working as Mason and earning more than Rs.10,000/-
per month. Since he did not substantiate same, Tribunal
assessed it notionally at Rs.7,000/-. Accident has occurred in
2015. Notional income for said year is Rs.8,000/-. Therefore,
Tribunal committed an error in assessing it at Rs.7,000/-. Same
has to be considered at Rs.8,000/- per month.
12. Claimant has sustained crush injury to right elbow
joint, forearm, right hand and right wrist. Under such
circumstances, award of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and
suffering would be grossly inadequate. It would be appropriate
to enhance it to Rs.50,000/-.
13. Claimant produced medical bills for a total sum of
Rs.1,25,618/- which is awarded. Thus, there is complete
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
HC-KAR
reimbursement. Though contention is taken about expending
much higher amount, without bills, same cannot be awarded.
Therefore, compensation awarded towards medical expenses is
sustained.
14. As stated above, claimant has sustained injury to
his right arm at elbow joint, forearm and wrist. PW.2 assessed
limb disability at 40% to 45%. Considering occupation of
claimant as coolie and loss of grip or movement at elbow joint
or wrist, same would cause higher lass of earning capacity.
Therefore, Tribunal is not justified in taking disability at 10%. It
would be appropriate to take it at 20%. Thus, compensation
towards loss of earning capacity would be Rs.3,07,200/-
(Rs.8,000 x 12 x 16 x 20%).
15. Taking note of inpatient period of treatment for
about 8 days, award of Rs.10,000/- towards food and
nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and
Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges would appear
adequate. Therefore, same is sustained.
16. Claimant was aged 35 years. In view of extent of
disability sustained and fact that injuries are to his right arm at
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
HC-KAR
elbow joint as well as wrist, award of notional amount of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities would be inadequate. It
would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs.35,000/-.
17. Thus, total compensation would be:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards injury, pain and Rs. 50,000/-
sufferings
2 Towards medical expenses Rs.1,25,618/-
3 Towards loss of income due to Rs.3,07,200/-
permanent physical disability
4 Towards food and nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
5 Towards attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-
6 Towards conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/-
7 Towards loss of amenities and Rs. 35,000/-
future unhappiness
Total Rs.5,47,818/-
18. Thus, claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,27,818/-.
19. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above.
20. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2930
HC-KAR
ii. Claimant is held entitled for total compensation
of Rs.5,47,818/- as against Rs.3,20,000/-
awarded by Tribunal with interest as awarded
by Tribunal.
iii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before
Tribunal within a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NB
Ct;Vk
