Karnataka High Court
Tukkappa S/O Kallappa vs Mohammed Khadeer S/O Mohammed Anwar, ... on 30 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
MFA No. 202881 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202881 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
TUKKAPPA S/O KALLAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR WORK, NOW NIL,
R/O: VILLAGE HONNADI,
TQ. AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT VIJAYALAXMI P. NAIKODI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED KHADEER
S/O MOHAMMED ANWAR,
Digitally signed AGED :MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
by NIJAMUDDIN R/O: H.NO. E/11/3855/377/3977,
JAMKHANDI JEELANABAD, GULBARAG,
Location: HIGH (OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE
COURT OF BEARING NO. KA32/S-3536)
KARNATAKA
2. SANJEEV KUMAR
S/O BANDEPPA BAWGE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: KAMTHANA,
TQ. AND DIST BIDAR - 585 401,
(OWNER OF HERO HONDA MOTORCYCLE
BEARING NO. KA -38/J-2652)
3. REVANAPPA
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR HILALPURE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
MFA No. 202881 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/O: VILLAGE, BAWGI,
TQ. AND DIST BIDAR - 585 401.
(PRESENT OWNER)
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GULBARGA, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BIDAR AT MAIN ROAD, BIDAR - 585 401,
(POLICE NO.246/31/10/02/00004074)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V., ACT,
PRAYING TO ENHANCEMENT AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2022 PASSED BY
THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT BIDAR IN
M.V.C.NO.185/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, 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 12.04.2022
passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bidar (for short,
'Tribunal') in MVC no.185/2020, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Vijayalaxmi P Naikodi, learned counsel
appearing for Sri Basavaraj R Math, learned counsel, submits,
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted, on 16.11.2010 at about 17:45 hours, when
claimant was riding pillion on motorcycle No.KA-38/J-2652 from
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
HC-KAR
Bidar to Kamathana village, near Manna-E-Khelli road, rider of
another motorcycle no.KA-32/S-3536, rode it in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against claimant's motorcycle
causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained grievous
injuries and was admitted to Government Hospital, Bidar.
Despite treatment, he sustained permanent physical disability
and loss of earning capacity. Hence, he filed claim petition
under Section 166 of MV Act against insurer and owner of other
motorcycle.
3. On contest, wherein owners remained ex-parte and
insurer of motorcycle no.KA-32/S-3536 opposed petition, not
only denying age, occupation, income, permanent physical
disability of claimant, but also alleged violation of policy
conditions, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and Dr.Nitin Loharkar as PWs.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 17. Respondents did not lead
any evidence.
4. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding by riders of both motorcycles.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
HC-KAR
Tribunal apportioned negligence equally against both riders and
assessed compensation as under:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
2 Medical, attendant and incidental Rs.6,000/-
charges
3 Loss of basic amenities Rs.8,000/-
4 Laid up period charges Rs.8,000/-
5 Medical bills Rs.13,142/-
6 Loss of earnings Rs.69,120/-
Total 1,24,262/-
5. It held that insurer liable to pay 50% of award
amount. Dissatisfied with award, claimant was in appeal.
6. It is submitted, claimant was working as coolie and
earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, tribunal assessed his
income notionally at Rs.4,000/- p.m., which was on lower side.
It was further submitted, though claimant sustained compound
fracture to right tibia and fibula, assessed by PW-2 to have
caused permanent physical disability to extent of 40% to limb.
But, tribunal assessed it at only 8%. It was submitted, even
compensation awarded towards, pain and suffering, loss of
income during laid up period, attendant and other incidental
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
HC-KAR
charges, as well as loss of amenities were grossly on lower side
and sought enhancement.
7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that
accident occurred in year 2010. Taking note of facts and
circumstances of case, just compensation was awarded under
separate heads and same did not call for any interference.
8. Heard counsel and perused impugned judgment and
award.
9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement of compensation, while owner/insurer has
accepted award, point that would arise for consideration is :
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought for?"
10. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following
reasons.
11. Though, in claim petition claimant had stated that he
was working as coolie and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., same was
not substantiated with specific evidence. In absence, it was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
HC-KAR
assessed notionally with notional income for year 2010 being
Rs.5,500/-, tribunal was not justified in taking it at Rs.4,000/-.
It is appropriate to assess notional income of claimant at
Rs.5,500/-. Claimant sustained compound fracture of right tibia
and fibula, which was a major fracture and award of
Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering would be inadequate
and therefore, is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Claimant took
treatment as inpatient for a period of 15 days at different
hospitals. Award of Rs.6,000/- towards attendant and other
incidental charges would be inadequate, same is enhanced to
Rs.15,000/-.
12. Normally, fractures take three months to heal and
same has to be considered as period of layoff. Claimant would
thus be entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards same. Since, claimant
sustained fractures and disability, award of Rs.8,000/- towards
loss of amenities would be grossly inadequate. It is appropriate
to enhance it to Rs.25,000/-. PW-2 has examined claimant and
assessed limb disability at 40%. While, passing impugned
award, tribunal noted that separate assessment based on effect
on disability of stability component, mobility component etc.,
i.e restriction of movements of limb and its effect on earning
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
HC-KAR
capacity was not given. It observed, restriction of knee joint
movement would not result in disability as assessed by PW-2.
It therefore, considered functional disability at 8%. Considering
facts and circumstances, assessment of tribunal appears
adequate and does not call for interference. Thus,
compensation towards future loss of income would be
Rs.95,040/- (Rs.5,500 x 12 x 8% x 18). Tribunal has awarded
Rs.13,142/- against medical bills produced, which was in
complete reimbursement, same does not call for interference.
Re-determined compensation is as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2 Medical, attendant and incidental Rs.15,000/-
charges
3 Loss of basic amenities Rs.25,000/-
4 Laid up period charges Rs.16,500/-
5 Medical bills Rs.13,142/-
6 Loss of earnings Rs.95,040/-
Total 1,94,682/-
13. Consequently, following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3499
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. Judgment and award dated 12.04.2022 passed
by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bidar in
MVC no.185/2020 is modified. Claimant is held
entitled for re-assessed compensation of
Rs.1,94,682/- as against Rs.1,24,262/-
awarded by Tribunal.
iii. Insurer is directed to deposit compensation
within a period of six weeks to extent of its
liability.
iv. On deposit, same is ordered to be released to
claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
