Karnataka High Court
Anand vs Amit Rathod And Anr on 24 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
MFA No. 200933 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200933 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ANAND S/O BHIMAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O H.NO.1-3-23, HANUMAN NAGAR, YADAGIRI,
TQ. AND DIST. YADAGIRI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AMIT RATHOD S/O SHANKER,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF JEEP BEARING
REG.NO.MH-13/CK-0482, R/O BORAOTI, KHURD,
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
SHANKER LING THANDA, AKKALKOT,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
TQ. AKKALKOT, DIST. SOLAPUR-413 216.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SANGAMESHWAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585 102,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
MFA No. 200933 of 2023
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2022 IN MVC NO.
155/2021 PASSED BY THE MEMBER MACT II, AT YADAGIRI,
MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent-
Insurance Company and perused the appeal papers.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment in MVC No.
155/2021 passed by learned Member, MACT-II, Yadagiri
dated 02.12.2022, the petitioner is before this Court in
the appeal.
3. The petitioner had met with an accident on
4.11.2020 involving the jeep bearing No.MH.13.CK.0482
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The
petitioner had sustained fracture of right shaft of tibia,
fibula and dislocation of right shaft and fracture of right
acetabulum and that he was coolie aged about 28 years at
the time of the accident. The petitioner also contended
that he has suffered permanent disability and therefore,
adequate compensation be awarded.
4. The respondents, owner and insurer of the
vehicle appeared before the Tribunal and they denied the
negligence of the jeep driver. So also contended that the
compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary.
They denied the age, occupation and income of the
petitioner. Inter alia, they also contended that there was
negligence on the apart of the petitioner and therefore,
the petition be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the
Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was
examined as PW1 and the Doctor who assessed the
disability was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P10
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
were marked. The respondents have not adduced any
evidence. However, copy of policy is marked as Ex.R1.
6. After hearing the arguments by both sides, the
Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.7,77,848/-
under different heads as below:
Loss of future earnings Rs. 4,59,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 1,63,848/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of earning during treatment period Rs. 45,000/-
Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs. 20,000/-
nourishment charges
Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
Removal of implant Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 7,77,848/-
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the
petitioner has approached this Court in this appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/ petitioner would submit that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and
therefore, there is need for reassessment of
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company had defended the
impugned judgment stating that the adequate
compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.
10. A perusal of the wound certificate at Ex.P5, the
testimony of PW2 and the disability certificate issued by
him at Ex.P7 would disclose that the petitioner had
sustained dislocation of the right hip joint, dislocation of
the right shoulder fracture of right acetabaulum, fracture
of right shaft of tibia and fibula. He was in patient from
5.11.2020 to 19.11.2020. He underwent surgery by way
of ORIF and CRIF for the fractures. The PW2 in his
Disability Certificate at Ex.P7 states that there is disability
of 38% to the right lower limb and he has not attributed
any disability in respect of the upper limb.
11. The Tribunal, on going through the evidence
available on record, came to the conclusion that the
functional disability of the petitioner is 15%. It is pertinent
to note that the petitioner being aged 28 years, the above
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
mentioned fractures, definitely contribute for the
functional disability and the assessment of the Tribunal at
15% do not require any interference by this Court.
12. Similarly, the Tribunal has taken the notional
income of the petitioner at Rs.15,000/- per month and
this also do not require any interference by this Court.
13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and sufferings. In the considered opinion of
this Court, the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-
since there are three fractures and a dislocation.
14. The injuries sustained by the petitioner,
definitely, would result in his loss of income during the laid
up period. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered
by the petitioner, it can safely be said that, he is unable to
resume his work, at least for a period of 04 months.
Hence, the same is reassessed at Rs.60,000/-
(Rs.15,000/- x 4).
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities in life and the same
needs to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.8,42,848/- as below:
Loss of future earnings Rs. 4,59,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 1,63,848/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of earning during treatment period Rs. 60,000/-
Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs. 20,000/-
nourishment charges
Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
Removal of implant Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 8,42,848/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 7,77,848/-
Enhancement Rs. 65,000/-
16. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of
Rs.65,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by
the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal deserves to be
partly allowed and hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1869
(ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
(iii) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.65,000/- in addition to what has been awarded
by the Tribunal along interest 6% p.a. from the
date of the petition till its realization.
(iv) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount within
six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
CT: AK
