Karnataka High Court
Bhimappa vs Parashuram And Anr on 20 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3270
MFA No. 202080 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202080 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BHIMAPPA S/O GANGAPPA TANGADAGI,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED AND BUSINESS,
R/O: SECTOR NO.2, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARASHURAM
S/O YALLAPPA BAJANTARI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HOUSE NO.70/C, NAVANAGAR,
SECTOR NO.38, BAGALKOT - 587 102.
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS,
Digitally signed SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
by RAMESH SHOP NOS.2 AND 3, BASAVESHWAR COMPLEX,
MATHAPATI MUKUND NAGAR, STATION ROAD,
Location: HIGH VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T.-V, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.
NO.757/2019 DATED 15.07.2022 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE
APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3270
MFA No. 202080 of 2023
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
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.07.2022.
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-V,
Vijayapura in MVC no.757/2019, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Sanganbasava B Patil, learned counsel
submitted, appeal was by claimant challenging finding of
tribunal on liability as well as for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted, on 25.04.2019, at about 8:40
a.m., when claimant was riding motorcycle bearing registration
no.KA-29/ED-0336 near Anush Petrol Pump Cross, Navanagar,
Bagalkot, driver of Tata Ace goods vehicle bearing registration
no.KA-29/A-6359 drove it in rash and negligent manner and
dashed against motorcycle, causing accident. In said accident,
claimant sustained fracture to right forearm and head injury.
Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully and lost
earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under
Section 166 of MV Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3270
HC-KAR
3. Contesting claim petition, insurer of offending
vehicle opposed petition on all grounds. Based on same,
tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant
examined himself as PW-1, Dr.Shakil Ahmed and Dr.SV Havinal
as PWs-2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P16. Insurer did not
lead any evidence, but, got marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1
with consent.
4. On consideration, tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by
its driver and claimant had sustained loss of earning capacity
and awarded compensation as under:
Sl.No. Different Heads Compensation
Amount
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/-
2 Medical bills incurred and future Rs.5,66,600/-
medical expenses, attendant,
conveyance, Nourishing food, and
other incidental expenses.
3 Loss of income during laid-up -
period
4 Loss of future income on account -
of permanent disability.
5 Loss of Amenities, Life comforts Rs.10,000/-
and expectancy of life.
Total Rs.6,01,600/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3270
HC-KAR
5. It absolved insurer of its liability on ground that
fitness certificate and permit in respect of goods vehicle had
expired as on date of accident and directed respondent no.1-
owner to pay compensation.
6. Learned counsel for appellant submitted, tribunal
had awarded inadequate compensation towards loss of
amenities and sought enhancement. He also contended that
Tribunal erred in absolving liability on part of insurer. In
support of submission, he relied on Division Bench decision of
this Court in MFA no.202022/2016.
7. On other hand, Sri Subash Mallapur, learned
counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was contended that
owner had renewed permit and fitness certificate after date of
accident and therefore, tribunal had rightly dismissed claim
petition against insurer. It was also submitted just
compensation was awarded and as there was no scope for
enhancement.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3270
HC-KAR
9. From above and since claimant is challenging
finding on liability as well as seeking for enhancement, points
that arise for consideration are :
i) Whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing
claim petition against insurer?
ii) Whether, claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
10. It is not in dispute that offending vehicle was duly
insured. Insurer sought to avoid liability on ground of expiry of
permit and fitness certificate. It is not in dispute that same
were renewed after accident. Division Bench of this Court in
MFA no.202022/2016 has held that mere expiry of permit and
fitness certificate would not be a ground for insurer to avoid
liability. Following said ratio, point no.1 is answered in
negative.
11. On quantum, it is seen that claimant was a
government employee. Considering same, Tribunal had
disallowed award towards loss of income during laid up period
and loss of future earnings. However, it awarded only
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. As, PW-2 and PW-3
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3270
HC-KAR
assessed disability caused, which would affect claimant in his
daily activities, even otherwise than service. Therefore, he
would be entitled for higher compensation. Taking note of ratio
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, it is
found appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss
of amenities. Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
a. Appeal is allowed in part.
b. Judgment and award dated 15.07.2022 passed
by Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-V,
Vijayapura in MVC no.757/2019 is modified.
Dismissal of petition against respondent no.2 is
set aside.
c. Claimant is entitled for re-assessed
compensation of Rs.6,41,600/- as against
Rs.6,01,600/- awarded by tribunal with 6%
interest from date of petition, till deposit.
d. Respondent no.2-insurer is held liable to pay
said compensation and is directed to deposit it
before tribunal within a period of six weeks. On
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3270
HC-KAR
deposit, all conditions about deposit and release
as per tribunal award would apply.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
