Karnataka High Court
Raja @ Rajappa vs Channabasavva Gouda on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
MFA No. 101957 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MFA NO. 101957 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAJA @ RAJAPPA S/O. HARIJANA DODDA MARENNA,
AGE 31 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DRIVER,
R/O. HARAGINADONI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK & DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANNABASAVANA GOUDA S/O. BASUVARAJ GOUDA,
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY,
R/O. BELAGAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK & DIST.
2. YALLAPPA S/O. DODDA HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY,
R/O.250 BANAKAR ONI, BELAGAL VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by BALLARI TALUK & DIST.
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, 3. THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS
Dharwad Bench
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALLARI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2016 PASSED
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI IN
M.V.C NO.853/2014 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
RS.14,15,000/- IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
MFA No. 101957 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
2. This is a claimant's appeal against the judgment
and award dated 26th April 2016, passed in MVC
No.853/2014 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II,
Ballari (for short "the Tribunal") seeking enhancement of
compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 14.02.2024,
the petitioner met with an accident near Belagal Bypass
Road, Ballari, due to the rash and negligent driving of the
lorry bearing registration No.KA-34/C-2448 by its driver. As
a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Initially, he had
taken treatment in VIMS Hospital, Ballari and was later
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
shifted to St. Mary's Hospital, Ballari for higher treatment,
wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for a period of 20
days. Subsequently, he was moved to Nisarga Hospital,
Ballari and took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 15
days. After discharge from the hospital, he continued his
treatment with private Doctors and incurred medical and
other incidental expenses amounting to more than
Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. It is further contended that, the claimant was
aged about 29 years at the time of accident. He was
working as a driver of the lorry and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has
suffered permanent disability, which has affected his
earning capacity. In the light of these circumstances, he has
prayed to an award of compensation in a sum of
Rs.16,40,000/-.
6. Respondent No.2 denied the contents of the
claim petition. He further contended that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to
pay the compensation. The petition is also bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties, and the liability of respondent
No.2 is restricted to the terms and conditions of the
Insurance Policy, provided the driver of the offending
vehicle holding valid and effective driving licence to drive
such a class of vehicle. With these reasons prayed to
dismiss the petition.
7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues for its
consideration, which reads as follows:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on
14.02.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., when he was
proceeding on the motorcycle bearing
reg.No.KA-35/J-6632 and when he reached
near Bypass cross, Belagal road, Ballari, at that
time one Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-34/C-2448
driven by the respondent No.1 in the great
speed and in a rash and negligent manner
came from opposite direction and dashed to
the petitioner's motorcycle and due to it, the
petitioner sustained injuries?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the
compensation as prayed by him from the
respondents?
3. What order or award?
8. The claimant to prove his case examined two
witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 17 documents as
per Exs.P1 to P17 then closed his evidence. Respondents
have not lead oral and documentary evidence.
9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
appreciating the evidence on record, awarded a global
compensation of Rs.22,095/- and directed respondent
Nos.1 to 3 to pay the compensation jointly and severally.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of
the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
argued in line with the grounds of the appeal memo. He
further contended that the Tribunal had not considered the
evidence of PW2 and the disability certificate given by him.
The said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. The claimant
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of
35% to 40% to the whole body. His earning was
Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a driver. Therefore,
he prayed to award compensation towards loss of future
earning capacity due to permanent disability. He also
submits that the global compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate and prayed to enhance the
compensation.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that according to the medical evidence i.e., wound
certificate issued by the Doctor, who initially treated the
claimant, there are only two simple injuries. PW2 has not
treated the injured and moreover he is not orthopedic
surgeon. Therefore, he is incompetent to assess the
disability of the claimant. He further submits that the
Tribunal in its judgment and award noted that PW2 is the
professional witness to the Court and he has appeared in
several motor vehicle accident cases, although he has not
treated the injured. He ahs issued a disability certificate
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
stating disability disproportionately. As such, his evidence is
not reliable. Even in the judgments rendered by this Court
conduct of said doctor was commented. Under these
circumstances, the evidence of PW2 is not reliable. For
these reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Let me scan the evidence placed on record:
Ex.P4 was issued by the Medical Officer of VIMS Hospital,
Ballari, stating that the claimant sustained a cut lacerated
wound over the right knee measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm; and
an abrasion injury over the vertex measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5
c.m. The Doctor opined that these injures are simple in
nature. It appears that the claimant was admitted as an
inpatient at VIMS Hospital, Ballari. His case sheet is also
available at Ex.P9, which shows that he sustained a fracture
of occipital bone and was admitted as an inpatient from
14.02.2014 to 19.02.2014. The documents also reveal that
he was discharged from the hospital against the medical
advice. It appears that the claimant has continued his
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
treatment as an out patient, and after discharge form the
hospital.
14. The claimant also taken treatment at St. Mary's
Hosptial, Ballary. A copy of the inpatient record is marked
as Ex.P8. It appears that he consulted PW2 on 14.12.2015,
nearly one year 10 months after the accident. PW2 found
that the claimant had sustained extradural hematoma
occipital region i.e., a fracture of both occipital bones,
hemorrhage of left side cerebral region. He diagnosed these
facts based on the CT Scan report. However, the petitioner
has not produced the CT Scan Report. As submitted by the
learned counsel for respondent No.3, even if evidence of
PW2 is considered the documents produced by him, do not
show that there is evidence of a fracture of both occipital
bones.
15. The claimant initially took treatment for about
five days at the Government Hospital and also took
treatment at St. Mary's Hospital, Ballari. The Tribunal has
awarded compensation for medical expenses on the basis of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
the receipts produced. In addition to this, the claimant
incurred expenses of conveyance, attendant charges,
special diet etc., which also need to be considered. PW1 in
his evidence, stated that he has been suffering from
giddiness and is unable to work as he was working prior to
the accident. He has constant headache and giddiness,
which worsen while performing the work. According to his
case, he is a driver by profession, but he has not produced
his driving licence. His contention that he is suffering
permanent disability to the extent of 35% to 40% has not
been proven, either before the Tribunal or this Court.
Hence, it cannot be considered.
16. Considering the materials available on record,
the claimant is entitled for global enhancement of the
compensation.
17. For the aforesaid reason, this Court pass the
following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
ORDER
(i) Accordingly the petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 26th April
2016, passed in MVC No.853/2014 by the
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II, Ballari is
modified.
(iii) The claimant is entitled for global
enhancement of compensation of
Rs.40,000/- in addition to the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The
claimant is also entitled to the interest on
the enhanced global compensation amount
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of payment of
enhanced amount.
(iv) Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the
enhanced compensation amount and shall
deposit the same within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5473
(v) The amount of enhanced compensation is
meager. Hence, the entire amount of
enhanced compensation is ordered to be
released in favour of the claimant, on due
identification.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
VNP /CT-AN
