Karnataka High Court
Deepak S/O Ramesh Jadhav vs Anuraj And Ors on 9 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
MFA No. 200754 of 2022
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.200754 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DEEPAK S/O RAMESH JADHAV,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: KIRANA SHOP,
R/O: VIJAYMAHANTESHWAR GALLI BHALKI,
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR
PIN CODE 585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANURAJ S/O KAMANNA,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALWADI, TQ: BHALKI,
Digitally signed DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD,
KARNATAKA SHARANBASVESHWAR TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
3. AMARNATH S/O VAIJINATH,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KESHARJAWALGA
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
4. THE MANAGER,
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
G1, G2, G12 AND G13,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
MFA No. 200754 of 2022
HC-KAR
ASIAN ARCADE,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TOR 1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.11.2020 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.349/2015 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BHALKI AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.2,28,480/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST.
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
Challenging judgment and award dated 30.11.2020
passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bhalki (for short,
'Tribunal') in MVC no.349/2015, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Babu H.Metagudda, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that appeal was by claimant for
enhancement of compensation. It was submitted occurrence of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
HC-KAR
accident on 15.12.2014, involving motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.MH-24/TRK-481 on which claimant was pillion rider and
another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-7588 on Hulsoor-
Bhalki road is not in dispute. Claimant sustaining injuries in
said accident, taking treatment at Primary Health Centre,
Hulsoor and despite same sustaining disability are not in
dispute. Claimant filed claim petition against owners/Insurers of
both motorcyclists under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
3. On contest, wherein objections were filed. Tribunal
framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined
himself as PW.1 and Dr.Rajshekar Sedamkar as PW.2 and got
marked Ex.P1 to P11. On other hand, Insurer examined its
official as RW1 and got marked copy of Insurance Policy as
Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by both
motorcyclists to extent of 50% each and therefore respective
Insurers were liable to pay compensation assessed as follows :-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
HC-KAR
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and suffering `20,000/-
2 Medical expenses `29,002/-
3 Conveyance, attendant charges and `3,000/-
nourishment
4 Amenities and unhappiness `8,000/-
5 Loss of future earning capacity on `1,68,480/-
account of permanent disability
Total `2,28,482/-
5. Learned counsel submitted that though accident
had occurred in year 2014 and claimant had stated his
monthly income was of `15,000/- from grocery business, it had
taken his monthly income at `6,000/- only which was
inadequate as notional income for 2014 was `7,500/-. It was
further submitted though claimant had sustained several
fractures, Tribunal had awarded only `20,000/- towards pain
and suffering. Though claimant had sustained fractures and
would have been away from employment for several months,
there was no award of compensation towards loss of income
during laid up period. Even award of `8,000/- towards loss of
amenities was on lower side. On said ground sought for
enhancement.
6. On other hand, Sri Mohd.Abdul Quayum and
Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel appearing for respective
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
HC-KAR
Insurers of vehicles involved, opposed appeal. It was submitted
that Tribunal had rightly assessed compensation and awarded
same, leaving no scope for enhancement.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and records.
8. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is -
"Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought for ?"
9. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative, for following reasons:
10. Insofar as monthly income, claimant has stated that
he was doing grocery business and earning `15,000/- per
month but, same was not substantiated with any material, in
absence Tribunal assessed it notionally. Notional income for
year 2014 is `7,500/-. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in
taking it at `6,000/-. Thus, compensation towards loss of future
earning would have to be reworked as follows :
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
HC-KAR
`7,500 x 12 x 18 x 13% = `2,10,600/-.
11. Claimant sustained fractures of metatarsals and
metacarpals, award of `20,000/- towards pain and suffering
would be inadequate. Since there are two minor fractures
claimant would be entitled to `30,000/- towards pain and
suffering. Tribunal has reimbursed entire amount for which
medical bills were produced. Therefore, there would be no
enhancement. Claimant was inpatient for a period of two days,
considering same, award of `3,000/- towards attendance,
nourishment etc., would be justified. Claimant sustained
fractures of metatarsals of right foot and metacarpals of right
hand. PW.2 assessed loss of flexion or extension of right foot at
20% and 300 to movement of right wrist. Considering age of
claimant at 19 years, award of `8,000/- towards loss of
amenities would be inadequate. It would be appropriate to
enhance it to `25,000/-. Claimant sustained fractures which
would normally take three months to heal. Therefore, claimant
would be entitled for `22,500/- (7,500x3) towards loss of
income during laid-up period.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
HC-KAR
12. Thus, claimant would be entitled for total
reassessed compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and suffering `30,000/-
2 Medical expenses `29,002/-
3 Conveyance, attendant charges and `3,000/-
nourishment
4 Amenities and unhappiness `25,000/-
5 Loss of future earning capacity on `2,10,600/-
account of permanent disability
6 Loss of income during laid up period `22,500/-
Total `3,20,102/-
13. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above.
14. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed
compensation of `3,20,102/- as against `2,28,482/-
awarded by Tribunal.
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945
HC-KAR
iv. Respondents-insurers to deposit enhanced
compensation to extent of their respective liabilities
with interest before Tribunal within a period of six
weeks.
v. On deposit, compensation amount shall be released
in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
Ct;Vk
