Karnataka High Court
Riyaz S/O Khaja Miyan vs Ramesh And Anr on 3 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
MFA No. 202704 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202704 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RIYAZ S/O KHAJA MIYAN
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: KSRTC DRIVER,
R/O: H.NO.112, OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
RAHAMAT NAGAR, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMESH S/O KALLAPPA HALIMANI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO.KA-33/R-4554,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH R/O: HULLUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
MATHAPATI DIST: VIJAYAPUR,
Location: HIGH NOW AT GOGI VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR - 585 201.
2. THE MANAGER
UNIVERSAL SAMPA,
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
UNIT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR,
SANGAM COMPLEX, 127,
ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD,
ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400 059.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TOR 1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
MFA No. 202704 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
ATED 15.06.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.48/2017 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T.
KALABURAGI AND ALLOW APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.9,32,715 ONLY AS CLAIMED
BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.06.2019
passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for
short, 'Tribunal') in MVC No.48/2017, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Nagraj Patil, learned counsel for
appellant/claimant submitted occurrence of accident on
10.01.2015 involving insured motor vehicle in which claimant
sustained grievous injuries and consequent of earning capacity
and liability of insurer to pay compensation are not in dispute.
In a claim petition filed under Section 166 of M.V.Avt, on
contest, Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads
as follows;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
HC-KAR
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards pain suffering Rs.40,000/-
2 Towards medical expenses Rs.2,54,570/-
3 Towards diet and attendant Rs.20,000/-
charges
4 Towards loss of income during -NIL-
laid-up period
5 Towards loss of earning capacity -NIL-
6 Towards loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.3,34,570/-
3. It was submitted claimant was seeking
enhancement of compensation on following grounds:
Firstly claimant had sustained communited fracture of
shaft femur, tibial plateau condylar depression fracture left,
bilateral polar borton fracture, which were grievous in nature.
Award of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering was in-
adequate.
Nextly claimant had taken inpatient treatment for a
period 18 days. Tribunal had not awarded any compensation
towards loss of income during laid up period. As per Ex.P20,
claimant's monthly salary was Rs.20,163/-. Therefore, sought
for award of appropriate compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
HC-KAR
Further claimant was working as driver in KSRTC,
injuries/disability sustained would affect enjoyment of life.
Therefore, award of Rs.20,000/- only towards loss of amenities
would not be justified. On above grounds, sought for allowing
of appeal. Even apportionment of negligence on claimant to
extent of 50% was sought to be assailed.
4. On other hand, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned
counsel for respondent no.2-insurer sought to support award
and oppose appeal. It was submitted Tribunal had taken note of
facts and circumstances in appropriate manner and awarded
just compensation leaving no scope for interference.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
6. From above, as claimant is seeking for
enhancement as well as assailing findings of Tribunal on
contributory negligence points that would arise for
consideration are:
(a) Whether Tribunal was justified in apportioning
negligence against claimant to extent of 50%
and denying compensation accordingly?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
HC-KAR
(b) Whether claimant is entitled enhancement of
compensation as prayed for?
7. Insofar as apportionment of negligence, it is not in
dispute that accident in question was head on collision between
two motorcycles. While passing impugned award, Tribunal has
taken note of police investigation records produced by claimant
i.e., FIR in Crime no.6/2015 as Ex.P1, Ex.P2-complaint, Ex.P3-
charge sheet, Exs.P4 and P5 statement of witnesses. It
observed that police after investigation had filed charge sheet
against riders of both motorcycles. On consideration of same,
Tribunal arrived at conclusion that accident was on account of
negligence of both riders and apportioned negligence to extent
of 50% each. On said finding, it denied compensation to extent
of 50%. Finding of Tribunal is based on consideration of
material on record and by assigning cogent reasons. There
would be no justification to hold said findings as perverse.
Therefore, point no.1 is answered in negative.
8. Insofar as claim for enhancement, Exs.P8 and P9,
wound certificates as well as treatment records from
Kamareddy Hospital, Kalaburagi, it is seen that claimant
sustained fracture of communited fracture of shat femur left,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
HC-KAR
tibial plateau condylar depression fracture left, bilateral polar
borton fracture, which would be grievous in nature. Normally,
this Court awards Rs.25,000/- for major fractures and
Rs.15,000/- each for minor fractures. Taking note of number
and nature of fractures sustained award of Rs.40,000/- only
towards pain and suffering would be inadequate. It would be
appropriate to enhance it to Rs.70,000/-.
9. Medical treatment records would indicate that
claimant took inpatient for 18 days. However, Tribunal did not
award any compensation towards loss of income during laid up
period or loss of earned leave. Taking note of fact that monthly
salary of claimant was Rs.20,163/- as per Ex.P20, it is found
appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- under said head.
10. Claimant has sustained several grievous fractures.
As per deposition of PW.2-doctor, claimant sustained 40%
permanent disability due to injuries sustained. Though, same
may not have resulted in loss of earning capacity, as claimant
is working as driver in KSRTC, same would definitely come in
way of enjoyment of life. Under such circumstances,
compensation under head loss of amenities cannot be notional
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
HC-KAR
but has to be substantial. Considering same, it is found
appropriate to enhance it to Rs.50,000/-. Compensation
awarded under other heads is not disturbed. Thus, claimant
would be entitled for enhanced compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Towards pain suffering Rs.70,000/-
2 Towards medical expenses Rs.2,54,570/-
3 Towards diet and attendant Rs.20,000/-
charges
4 Towards loss of income during Rs.10,000/-
laid-up period
5 Towards loss of earning capacity -NIL-
6 Towards loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.4,04,570/-
11. Thus, claimant would be entitled to an additional
amount of Rs.70,000/-.
12. Point no.2 is answered accordingly.
13. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed
compensation of Rs.4,04,570/- as against
Rs.3,34,570/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2813
HC-KAR
6% per annum from date of claim petition till
realization.
iii. Claimant is held entitled for 50% of same with
interest @ 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till
realization.
iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit same 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
msr
Ct;Vk
