Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun S/O Ningappa Biradar vs Mahantesh S/O Shekappa Kyarkoppa, And ... on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
MFA No. 200375 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200375 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN S/O NINGAPPA BIRADAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
DRIVER, R/O KAULAGI,
TQ. AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHANTESH S/O SHEKAPPA KYARKOPPA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SANNAMAVAR ONI, SATTUR,
Digitally signed TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580 009.
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
Location: HIGH 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 26.08.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
MFA No. 200375 of 2020
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. NO.XIII, VIJAYAPUR AT
VIJAYAPUR IN M.V.C. NO.166/2017 DATED 28.03.2018 AND BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE
RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Though, this appeal is slated for admission, the same
is taken up for disposal with consent of learned counsel for
both the parties.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the quantum
of the compensation awarded by the IV Addl. District
Judge and MACT, Vijayapur in MVC No.166/2017 dated
28.03.2018 is before this Court seeking enhancement of
the compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
4. The petitioner contends that on 04.12.2016
while driving the auto rickshaw with two passengers, he
was hit by another vehicle bearing No.KA-25/D-9648
resulting in the petitioner sustaining injuries. The petition
lists as many as 15 injuries, which may also be found in
the wound certificate at Ex.P5. The petitioner contended
that he had to undergo splenectomy and had suffered
fracture of the ribs and therefore he being an auto
rickshaw driver earning Rs.12,000/- per month, aged
about 28 years, he is entitled for adequate compensation.
5. The petition was opposed by the respondent-
insurance company on the ground that there are no such
injuries, which are discernible and moreover, the
compensation claim was highly exorbitant, imaginary and
untenable. It had contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence
and there were breach of the terms and conditions of the
policy.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and
evidence was let in and apart from the petitioner, the
doctor who assessed disability was examined as PW2.
Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. The respondents did not
lead any evidence.
7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded
compensation under different heads as below;
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1 Medical expenses Rs.89,000/-
2 Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
3 Loss of amenities Rs.35,000/-
4 Attendant charges Rs.03,000/-
Total Rs.2,27,000/-
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the Tribunal failed to assess the
disability as stated by PW2 and has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of income during laid
up period also. It is submitted that the petitioner was
inpatient for about 10 days and therefore, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
compensation awarded by the Tribunal being lower side,
there is a need for enhancement.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submits that the compensation awarded
is adequate and there is no need for enhancement. He
points out that the PW2 is not a treated doctor and
therefore, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting his
testimony regarding the disability.
10. The nature of the injuries suffered by the
petitioner as enlisted in the impugned judgment as well as
in the injury certificate produced at Ex.P5 would show that
most of the injuries are abrasions and as such are simple.
However, it is relevant to note that the petitioner had
sustained fracture of left transverse process of L1 and L3
vertebra, fracture of 1st to 4th of the right ribs and 1st to
2nd of the left ribs, there was a spleenic injury resulting in
spleenectomy, mild right pleural effusion indicating
peritoneal, hemoperitoneum. The testimony of the PW2
would indicate that due to spleenectomy there is depleted
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
immunity resulting in the petitioner suffering infections
frequently. It is worth to note that the petitioner has not
suffered any such disability which impairs his functionality
as a driver. At the most, the fracture of the L1 and L3
vertebra would cause some discomfort to him and there is
no such disability which was measured by the PW2 in
respect of the same. The disability stated by PW2 is in
respect of the spleenectomy and reduction in the liver size
and due to laparotomy which was done. Evidently, the
compensation cannot be awarded to the petitioner under
the head of loss of income due to the disability suffered by
him. The disability stated by PW2 is not relatable to any
functional disability which the petitioner could suffer.
However, it is relevant to note that the petitioner being a
driver has to move to different places and that would
increase his exposure for the infections. Considering the
nature of the injuries suffered and discomfort for his
functions, it would be just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life
instead of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
11. Further, the petitioner though contended that
he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, has not produced
any material to show the same and as such a sum of
Rs.25,000/- is awarded to him under the head of loss of
income during laid up period.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-
under the head of attendant charges, conveyance
nourishment etc. Considering the nature of the injuries
suffered by the petitioner, it would be proper to award a
sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head.
13. Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- under following heads.
Medical expenses Rs.89,000/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
Attendant charges Rs.15,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.3,29,000/-
Less awarded by Tribunal Rs.2,27,000/-
Total enhancement Rs.1,02,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified by
awarding a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- in
addition to what has been awarded by
the Tribunal together with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization.
(iii) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company
is directed to deposit the entire
compensation amount within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
remains unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SMP
CT: AK
