Karnataka High Court
Shrimanth vs Sabanna And Anr on 20 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
MFA No. 201813 of 2019
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.201813 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRIMANTH S/O SAKRAPPA HADPAD,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BARBER (NOW NIL),
R/O: H.NO.281, SYED CHINCHOLLI ROAD,
SHAIKH ROZA, ASHRAYA COLONY,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SABANNA S/O MONAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
NO.KA-32/N-0638, R/O: LADLAPUR,
TQ: CHITTAPUR & DIST: KALABURAGI.
2. THE RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
Digitally signed THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
by RAMESH 4TH BLOCK, ASIAN PLAZA COMPLEX,
MATHAPATI
STATION MAIN ROAD, NEAR S.V.PATEL CHOWK,
Location: HIGH
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN
M.V.C.NO.418/2017, DATED 15.06.2019, BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
MFA No. 201813 of 2019
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 15.06.2019
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Kalaburagi (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.418/2017, this
appeal is filed.
2. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel submitted appeal
was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was
submitted, on 24.01.2017, when claimant was riding
motorcycle bearing reg.no.KA-32/W-9330 along with his friend
at 8.00 p.m. near IOC Gate, Kalaburagi, when driver of Scorpio
bearing reg.no.KA-32/N-0638 drove it in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against motorcycle. Due to same, claimant
sustained grievous injuries. Despite taking treatment, he did
not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability
and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and
insurer of offending jeep.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
HC-KAR
3. On contest, wherein owner/Insurer opposed claim
petition on all counts including alleging violation of policy
conditions etc., tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and Dr.Ramakant Kulkarni as PWs.1
and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Respondents did not
lead evidence.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured jeep by
its driver, claimant had sustained permanent physical disability
and lost earning capacity and was therefore entitled for
compensation from insurer as follows :-
1. Pain and suffering `50,000/-
2. Attendant charges, food and conveyance `11,500/-
charges
3. Loss of future income `3,68,600/-
4. Medical expenditure `2,22,300/-
5. Loss of income during treatment `24,000/-
6. Loss of amenities and nutrition food `25,000/-
Total `7,01,400/-
Not satisfied with same, claimant was in appeal.
5. It was submitted, claimant was 35 years of age,
working as Barber and earning `15,000/- per month. However,
tribunal erred in taking it notionally at `8,000/-, same called for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
HC-KAR
enhancement. It was further submitted, claimant sustained
fracture of mid-shaft lower 3rd of right humerus, fracture of
right accetabulum and fracture of medial malleolus which were
major fractures. But, tribunal awarded inadequate
compensation of `50,000/- towards pain and suffering. It was
further contended claimant had taken inpatient treatment for
23 days. Therefore, award of `11,500/- only towards food,
nourishment, attendant and conveyance etc., was inadequate.
It was submitted, even loss of income during laid-up period and
amenities was also inadequate. It was lastly contended that
PW.2-Doctor had assessed whole body disability to extent of
72.7%. However, tribunal considered only 24% as loss of
earning capacity which was inadequate and sought
enhancement.
6. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was
submitted, tribunal had taken note of injuries, disability
sustained and awarded just compensation, leaving no scope for
enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
HC-KAR
7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
8. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement of compensation, while insurer has accepted
award, point that would require consideration is :
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement
of compensation as sought for ?"
Same is answered partly in affirmative, for following reasons :
9. Occurrence of accident, involving insured vehicle
due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, claimant
sustaining permanent physical disability and loss of earning
capacity due to same and insurer being held liable to pay
compensation are not in dispute. Appeal is on quantum. Insofar
as monthly income, though claimant stated that he was
working as Barber and earning `15,000/- per month, same was
not substantiated any material, Tribunal assessed it notionally.
Notional income for year 2017 being `10,250/-, same was
required to be considered. Claimant sustained three major
fractures, award of `50,000/- towards pain and suffering same
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
HC-KAR
would be inadequate. Normally, this Court grants `25,000/-
towards major fractures. Thus, claimant is awarded `75,000/-
towards pain and suffering. Since claimant suffered fractures
which normally heal in three months, award of Tribunal towards
loss of income during laid up period is not justified, same is
enhanced to `30,750/-.
10. Tribunal awarded `11,500/- only towards
conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Taking note
of fact that claimant had taken treatment as inpatient for a
period of 23 days, it would be appropriate to enhance it to
`25,000/-. PW.2 who examined claimant assessed whole body
disability at 72.7%. Taking note of fact that there is no detailed
explanation of restriction of movement and its effect on
profession, assessment by PW.2 cannot be considered as loss
of earning capacity. Same would require moderation.
Considering occupation, it would be appropriate to consider loss
of earning capacity at 35%.
11. PW.2 has further stated that claimant requires to
undergo operation for removal of implants. Implants are seen
at all three fracture sides. Taking note of same, it would be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
HC-KAR
appropriate to award `1,00,000/- towards future medical
expenses.
12. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Mohd.Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager,
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation1 future prospects
would require to be added to monthly income even in case of
personal injury claims. Since claimant is 35 years of age and
self employed, 40% has to be added as per decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. Thus, computation of
future loss of income would be as follows:-
(`10,250 + 40%) x 35% x 12 x 16 = `9,64,320/-.
13. Tribunal has awarded `2,22,300/- towards complete
reimbursement of medical bills. Therefore, there would be no
scope for enhancement. Taking note of number of injuries
sustained and disability caused, Tribunal would not be justified
in awarding `25,000/- only towards loss of amenities, it would
(2022) 18 S.C.R. 427
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
HC-KAR
be appropriate to enhance it to `40,000/-. Thus, total
compensation would be as follows :-
1. Pain and suffering `75,000/-
2. Attendant charges, food and conveyance `25,000/-
charges
3. Loss of future income `9,64,320/-
4. Medical expenditure `2,22,300/-
5. Loss of income during treatment `30,750/-
6. Loss of amenities and nutrition food `40,000/-
7. Future medical expenses `1,00,000/-
Total `14,57,370/-
14. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award
dated 15.06.2019 passed in MVC no.418/2017
by Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
MACT, Kalaburagi is modified, claimant is held
entitled for total compensation of`14,57,370/-
as against `7,01,400/- awarded by Tribunal
with interest at rate of 6% per annum from
date of claim petition till realization.
ii. Insurer is held liable to pay same and is
directed to deposit it before Tribunal within six
weeks.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271
HC-KAR
iii. Conditions imposed by Tribunal about deposit
and release would apply to enhanced
compensation proportionately.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SN
Ct;Vk
