Karnataka High Court
Adeppa S/O Gandemma vs Bhimappa Shivalingappa Ainapur S/O ... on 18 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
MFA No. 101408 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MFA NO. 101408 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ADEPPA S/O GANDEMMA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS A DRIVER,
R/O: VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, NEAR MM HALLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK, DIST: BALLARI-573274.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHIMAPPA SHIVALINGAPPA AINAPUR,
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER NEKRTC BUS BEARING REG.
NO.KA-34/F-508, R/O: SINDHOGI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 2. THE DIVISION CONTROLLER,
Location: High
Court of NEKRTC, HOSAPETE DEPOT, HOSAPETE,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench BALLARI-573274.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.510/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
HOSAPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
MFA No. 101408 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the
judgment and award dated 9th September 2016, passed in
MVC No.510 of 2013 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC, Hospete (for short "the Tribunal") seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 13.03.2012
at about 4:30 p.m, when he was coming on his motorbike
bearing registration No.KA-35/L-753 met with an accident
near Kondanyakanahalli cross, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA-
34/F-508 by its driver. As a result of which the claimant
sustained compound comminuted fracture of both bones of
right leg. It is his further case that he has spent more than
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses. He was driver by
profession and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month along
with Rs.300/- per day batta and due to the injuries
sustained in the accident he has been suffering from
permanent disability. For these reasons, he prayed for
awarding compensation of Rs.38,66,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent
No.2 is the Controller of NEKRTC appeared and filed their
respective written statements. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have
contended that the accident had taken place due to the
negligence of the claimant. Driver of the bus was not at all
responsible for the accident. Amount claimed is excessive.
On these grounds, it sought dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following issues for its determination:
"1. Does the petitioner proves that on 13.03.2012
at about 4:30 p.m. he was riding a vehicle
bearing Reg. No.KA-35/L-753 and when it
reached near Kondanayakanahalli cross,
respondent No.1 being the driver of KSRTC bus
Bg. No.KA-34/F-508 drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
motorbike as a result of which petitioner
suffered injuries as stated in the petition?
2. Does the 2nd respondent proves that, the
accident is due to the reasons stated para
12(a) and (b) of written statement?
3. Does the petitioner proves that, he is entitled
for compensation, if so, how much, from
whom?
4. What order or award?
6. To prove the case, the claimant examined
himself as PW1 and also examined the Doctor as PW2 and
got marked 95 documents at Exs.P1 to P95. On the other
hand, respondent No.1-driver was examined himself as
RW1. Respondents have not produced any documents.
7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
on appreciating the entire evidence available on record,
held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Further, the
Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award, partly
allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of
Rs.3,14,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
from the date of petition till realization, on the following
heads:
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.70,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
4. loss of income during laid-up Rs.12,000/-
period
5. loss of future earning capacity Rs1,72,800/-
due to permanent disability
TOTAL Rs.3,14,800/-
8. The Tribunal assessed the loss of future earnings
due to permanent disability by taking the income of the
claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month, applied the multiplier as
16, assessed the age of the claimant as 33 years as on the
date of accident and also taken permanent disability at 10%
to the whole body.
9. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
claimant submits that, the Tribunal has not assessed the
income of the claimant properly and disability assessed by
the Tribunal is also incorrect. The Tribunal did not award
adequate compensation under all the heads. Hence, he
seeks for enhancement of compensation.
12. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently
contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is excessive and the disability assessed by the
Tribunal is also on the higher side. However, the
respondents have not filed any appeal against the said
award. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
13. The facts of the accident and the claimant
sustained the injuries in the accident are not in dispute.
Respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the only question
that would arise for my consideration is:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
"whether the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?"
14. My answer to the said question is partly in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
15. The claimant has sustained fracture of both
bones of right leg. He was driver by profession and he was
said to be earning batta in addition to the monthly salary.
He was admitted to the Hospital as an inpatient for about
eight days. Even after discharge from the Hospital, he may
not be in a position to attend to his duties. He would have
taken follow up treatments frequently by visiting to the
Hospital. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal
while awarding the compensation towards incidental
expenses, attendant charges, special diet and conveyance
charges etc., it needs to be awarded.
16. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
the head loss of amenities in a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is
highly inadequate, which needs to be enhanced. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of income
during laid-up period only for a period of two months. The
Tribunal at paragraph No.15 of the judgment assessed the
income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month, for
assessment of compensation towards loss of future earning
capacity due to permanent disability. However, for
assessment of compensation towards loss of income during
laid-up period, the salary of the claimant was considered at
Rs.6,000/- per month, which is incorrect. The Tribunal
should have awarded compensation by taking the salary as
Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant had sustained frature
of both bones of right leg. Therefore, it may not be possible
for him to attend to the regular work at least for a period of
three to four months, which needs to be considered while
awarding compensation towards loss of income during
laid-up period.
17. The amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
of income due to permanent disability are proper and it
does not call for any interference.
18. For the aforesaid discussion, following amounts
of compensation are recalculated and awarded:
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.70,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/-
4. loss of income during laid-up Rs.36,000/-
period
5. Attendant and conveyance Rs.20,000/-
charges special diet etc.,
6. Loss of future earning capacity Rs1,72,800/-
due to permanent disability
TOTAL Rs.3,78,800/-
Less: amount of compensation Rs.3,14,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
ENHANCED COMPENSATION Rs.64,000/-
19. The claimant is entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.64,000/-.
20. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 9th
September 2016, passed in MVC No.510 of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4963
2013 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Hospete is modified.
(iii) The appellant - claimant is entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.64,000/- in
addition to the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till its realization, on
the enhanced amount of compensation.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before the Tribunal
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
(v) Deposit and release of the amount as ordered
by the Tribunal shall hold good for the
compensation awarded in this appeal.
(vi) The Registry to send a copy of this judgment
forthwith to the Tribunal.
(vii) The Registry to draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: AN
