Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa S/O Sabanna Yaddalli vs Shivasharanappa And Ors on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
MFA No. 200323 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200323/2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O SABANNA YADDALLI,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & MOCHI WORK,
R/O. KURKUNDA VILLAGE,
TQ. SEDAM,
NOW AT H.NO. 102, JAGAT CIRCLE,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.V. DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA AND:
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O NARASAPPA SANNA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TATA SUMO
VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-32/B-1984,
BADGE NO.25008
R/O H.NO.12, LINGAMPALLI,
TQ. SEDAM-585 301.
2. GVRMP THROUGH ITS REPRESENTER AND
OBLIGER,
RC HOLDER OF TATA SUMO NO. KA-32/N-1984,
AT WHAGDHAR IBBONPALLI TOLLWAY P. LTD.,
GOPANNAPALLI CAMP SITE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
MFA No. 200323 of 2022
NEAR MUDHOL,
BANNURU LINGAMPALLI,
TQ. SEDAM-585 301.
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DR. JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
4. ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
OPP: S.B. PETROL PUMP, COURT ROAD,
NEAR GESCOM,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADV., FOR R3;
SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV., FOR R4;
R1 & R2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI, AT
KALABURAGI, IN MVC NO.1271/2015 DATED 16.03.2021
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND BE PLEASED TO
ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS
PRAYED FOR 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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
MFA No. 200323 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI)
1. Though this matter is slated for admission, with
the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-petitioner and learned counsels appearing for
respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respective Insurance
Companies.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 16.03.2021 passed in MVC No.1271/2014 by the II
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Kalaburagi,
(for short 'the Tribunal'), petitioner is before this Court
seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that in the
accident that occurred on 03.06.2014 involving the Tata-
Sumo owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and insured by
respondent No.4, the petitioner sustained fracture of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
lumbrascaral area. Petitioner stated that he was admitted to
Government Hospital Malkhed, thereafter shifted to Sedam
Hospital and then was shifted to Government Hospital,
Gulbarga, where he was inpatient from 04.06.2014 to
14.07.2014, but did not produce any documents to show the
same. The petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking
compensation contending that he was aged 60 years and had
an income of Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Cobbler
at the time of accident. Due to the accidental injuries, he is
unable to do his job as earlier and as such claimed adequate
compensation.
5. The petition was opposed by the respondent No.4
- Insurance Company contending that the compensation
claimed was highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and
it denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner.
6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined
as PW1, the Doctor was examined as PW2 and documents at
Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. No evidence was
led by the respondents. After hearing arguments by the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.79,000/-
under different heads as below:
Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury, pain Rs.20,000/-
and suffering
b. Towards medical Rs.1,000/-
expenses
c. Towards food and extra Rs.--
nourishment and
medical attendant
d. Towards conveyance Rs.5,000/-
e. Towards loss of income Rs.7,500/-
during treatment
f. Towards permanent Rs.40,500/-
disability
g. Deprivation of future Rs.5,000/-
amenities
Total compensation Rs.79,000/-
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side and it has not properly assessed
the compensation under the heads of loss of amenities in
life, loss of future income and other heads.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.4 - Insurance Company defends the
impugned judgment and award, stating that the
compensation of Rs.79,000/- is adequate.
10. The testimony of PW2 coupled with Disability
Certificate would show that the petitioner had suffered right
sided fracture at lumbarsacral area and there were
tenderness of L1 and S4 vertebra. The PW2, who has
assessed the disability, gave Certificate stating that the
petitioner is suffering from disability of 25%. He opined that
there is nerve compression, which has resulted in disability.
The Tribunal considered the disability at 5% and awarded the
compensation. It is pertinent to note that at the time of
accident the petitioner was aged 60 years and working as
Cobbler. Evidently, the job of the petitioner is to sit for long
duration and therefore, the injury to the lumbar area
definitely causes inconvenience to him. Hence, the disability
assessed by the Tribunal at 5% appears to be on the lower
side and the same needs to be increased to 8%. Hence, by
retaining notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
compensation under the head of loss of income on account of
disability is calculated as Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 8% x 9 =
Rs.64,800/-, by adopting multiplier of '9' for the age of 60
years.
11. Consequently, considering the nature of the
injuries, the loss of income during laid up period is calculated
for two months as Rs.7,500/- x 2 = Rs.15,000/-.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-
under the head loss of amenities in life. Considering the
nature of injuries and the age of the petitioner, it would be
just and proper to award Rs.15,000/- under this head.
13. In the absence of any documents to show the
medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,000/-, which is as good as awarding no compensation
for medical expenses. Therefore, as against Rs.1,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded
under this head.
14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering, the same is just and proper.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
15. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards nourishment and attendant's charges. Only a sum
of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards conveyance.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained, as against
Rs.5,000/-, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the
heads, conveyance, nourishment and moderate attendant
charges.
16. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for
total compensation of Rs.1,29,800/- as below as against
Rs.79,000/- awarded by the Tribunal:
Sl. Heads Award by Award by this
No. the Tribunal Court
1 Injury, pain and Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
suffering
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/-
3 Conveyance, extra Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
nourishment and
attendant's charges
4 Loss of income Rs.7,500/- Rs.15,000/-
during treatment
5 Loss of future income Rs.40,500/- Rs.64,800/-
6 Loss of amenities in Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-
life
Total compensation Rs.79,000/- Rs.1,29,800/-
Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.79,000/-
Total enhancement Rs.50,800/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1891
17. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed
and hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant is entitled for a sum of
Rs.50,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization, in
addition to what has been awarded by the
Tribunal.
(iv) The respondent No.4 - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest within a period
of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
