Karnataka High Court
Nagnath vs Gadegeppa And Anr on 10 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986
MFA No. 200666 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200666 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NAGNATH S/O SHIVARAJ PATNE,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: PLUMBER AND
RUNNING FLOURMILL,
NOW NILL,
R/O: VIJAYNAGAR COLONY,
PROPER BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT NEEVA M.CHIMKOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GADAGEPPA S/O MADAPPA ENAMATE,
Digitally signed AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF
by RAMESH HERO HONDA NO.KA-39/H-4874,
MATHAPATI
R/O: H.NO.131, KHANDALA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
KARNATAKA DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DR.JEWALE COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI - 585 105.
(POLICY NO.240685311P111905211,
VALID FROM 08.01.2016 TO 07.01.2017,
DATE OF ACCIDENT : 24.02.2016)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986
MFA No. 200666 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE APPORTIONMENT IN THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2018, PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BASAVAKALYAN AT
BASAVAKALYAN IN M.V.C.NO.692/2016 BY AWARDING THE ENTIRE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS HEREIN,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 11.07.2018
passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Basavakalyan
(for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.692/2016, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Neeva M.Chimkod, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that on 24.02.2016, claimant was walking
by left side of road near Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Chowk, when rider of
motorcycle bearing Reg.no.KA-39/H-4874 came in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against claimant - pedestrian. In
said accident, claimant sustained comminuted fracture of right
tibia and fracture of lateral condoyle. Despite taking treatment
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986
HC-KAR
at Government Hospital, Basavakalyan and Dr.Rajendra Kanade
Hospital, Omerga, he did not recovered fully and sustained
disability. In claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, owner and insurer of offending motorcycle
appeared and opposed petition.
3. On contest, wherein objections were filed. Tribunal
framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined
himself as PW.1, got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and also examined
Dr.Rajkumar Kanade as PW.2. Insurer did not lead evidence.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle
by its rider, claimant had sustained permanent physical
disability/loss of earning capacity and was entitled for
compensation as follows :-
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Medical and other incidental expenses `1,30,000/-
i.e., (`1,20,000/- + `10,000/-)
2 Pain and sufferings `10,000/-
3 Future loss of earning capacity due to `2,91,600/-
disability
4 Loss of income during laid up period `9,000/-
5 Loss of amenities in life `10,000/-
Total `4,50,600/-
and held Insurer liable to pay same.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986
HC-KAR
5. Not satisfied with award, claimant was in appeal. It
was submitted that though claimant sustained fracture of right
tibia and fracture of lateral condoyle, Tribunal awarded only
`10,000/- towards pain and suffering which was on lower side.
It was submitted Tribunal had awarded loss of income during
laid-up period for only `9,000/- which was on lower side.
Likewise, even award of `10,000/- towards loss of amenities
was grossly inadequate. It was submitted PW.2 - Ortho
Surgeon had assessed limb disability at 56%. However,
Tribunal considered whole body disability/loss of earning
capacity at 18% which required enhancement. On said ground
sought for allowing appeal.
6. Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for respondent-
Insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted Tribunal had
considered entire material on record and awarded just
compensation and there was no scope for enhancement.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and records.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986
HC-KAR
8. From above and since claimant is in appeal for
enhancement while Insurer has accepted award, only point that
would arise for consideration is -
"Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought
for ?"
9. My answer to same is partly in affirmative, for
following reasons:
10. As noted by Tribunal, claimant sustained fracture of
right tibia and lateral condoyle which would be grievous
fractures. Normally, this Court awards `25,000/- towards major
fractures. Therefore, it would be appropriate to enhance
compensation towards pain and suffering to `30,000/-. Tribunal
considered income of claimant at `9,000/- and awarded loss of
income towards laid-up of one month. Normally, fractures take
about three months to heal. Considering same claimant would
be entitled for `27,000/- towards laid-up period. Tribunal has
awarded a total compensation of `1,30,000/- towards medical
bills and other bills for which medical bills were produced.
Same appears just and proper, no enhancement is required.
Claimant was 36 years old, coolie by profession, sustained
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986
HC-KAR
disability of his right lower limb. PW.2 assessed it at 56% and
issued disability certificate at Ex.P.13. Though PW.2 was also
examined neither in his evidence nor in Ex.P.13 - disability
certificate, there is explanation about manner, nature and
restriction of limb movements. He only stated about total
disability. There is no assessment of loss of earning capacity.
Taking note of age and occupation as well as disability, it would
be appropriate to consider loss of earning capacity at 20%
instead of 18% assessed by Tribunal. Thus, compensation
towards loss of future income would be :
`9,000 x 12 x 15 x 20% = `3,24,000/-.
11. Further award of `10,000/- only towards loss of
amenities would be grossly inadequate. Same is increased to
`30,000/- Thus, claimant would be entitled for total reassessed
compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Medical and other incidental expenses `1,30,000/-
i.e., (`1,20,000/- + `10,000/-)
2 Pain and sufferings `30,000/-
3 Future loss of earning capacity due to `3,24,000/-
disability
4 Loss of income during laid up period `27,000/-
5 Loss of amenities in life `30,000/-
Total `5,41,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986
HC-KAR
12. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed
compensation of `5,41,000/- as against
`4,50,600/- 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.
iv. Respondent-Insurer to deposit enhanced
compensation with interest before Tribunal
within a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
Ct:Vk
