Karnataka High Court
Managing Director vs Sanganabasappa on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
MFA No. 103901 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103901 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MANAGING DIRECTOR
NWKRTC HUBBALLI
REPRESENTED BY DEPT MANAGER MAGOOD ROAD
RANEBENNUR-581115, DIST. HAVERI.
REPRESENTED BY CHEIF LAW OFFICER
NWKRTC GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SANGANABASAPPA
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA BANAKAR
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
R/O. HANUMANAHALLI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
TQ. RANEBENNUR-581114, DIST. HAVERI
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.15
10:24:53 +0530
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.558/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT RANEBENNUR AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
MFA No. 103901 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
Heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri
M.K.Soudagar for appellant and learned counsel Sri
Chandrashekhar Hosamani for respondent.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the
judgment and award passed in MVC No.558/2013 dated
01.04.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Ranebennur (for short, 'Tribunal') questioning the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The parties would be referred to as per their
ranks before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and
clarity.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.02.2013 at
about 9.00 a.m. claimant was proceeding as pedestrian by
left side of the road on Hanumanahalli-Teredahalli road near
Hanumanahalli village; at that time, driver of KSRTC bus
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
HC-KAR
bearing Reg.No.KA-27/F-356 came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the claimant; due to which he
sustained grievous injuries; immediately after the accident,
he was shifted to PHC, Ranebenuur for first-aid treatment
and then taken to Apoorva Hospital, Davangere for further
treatment; he has taken treatment as inpatient for one
month and spent ₹.1,00,000/- towards treatment and still
requires ₹.50,000/- for future treatment; he was earning
₹.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture. Hence, prayed
for compensation of ₹.13,40,000/- with interest at 12% per
annum.
5. On service of notice, respondent No.2-insurer
appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement,
wherein it denied the entire case of the claimant and prayed
for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as
P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2 apart from marking
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
HC-KAR
Exs.P.1 to P.13 and closed his side. On behalf of
respondents, no evidence was let in.
7. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has
totally awarded the compensation at ₹.1,81,100/- under
different heads as follows:
1. Towards Pain and Suffering Rs.35,000-00
2. Medical Expenses Rs.37,100-00
3. Diet, Nourishment, conveyance and Rs. 3,000-00
Attendant charges
4. Towards loss of income during laid-up Rs.12,000-00
period-
5. Loss of Future Income on account of Rs.84,000-00
permanent Physical Disability
6. Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life Rs.10,000-00
Total Rs.1,81,100-00
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
award, the insurer has filed this appeal on the ground that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
HC-KAR
Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal by reducing the
quantum of compensation.
9. Learned counsel Sri Chandrashekhar Hosamani
appearing for the claimant would submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side but
as he has not preferred any appeal, the award passed by
the Tribunal may be confirmed.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides and on
verifying the appeal papers, the only point that would arise
for consideration is, "whether the appellant-insurer is able
to prove that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
on higher side?"
11. Answer to the above point would be in the
"negative" for the following reasons:
12. There is no serious dispute about the nature of
accident, place, date, time of accident and nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant and his avocation. The only
dispute is regarding the income of the injured.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
HC-KAR
13. It is alleged that the claimant was working as
agriculturist and earning ₹.20,000/- per month. However,
no material is produced to show the same. When the actual
income of the injured is not produced, then the guidelines
issued by the KSLSA for Lok-Adalath is to be considered.
Hence, the notional income of the injured is to be taken at
₹.7,000/- for the accident of the year 2013.
14. The Tribunal has considered the disability of the
claimant at 10% by examining the wound certificate,
disability certificate and evidence of doctor and also nature
of injuries sustained by the claimant injured even though
the doctor has stated that the disability is 40%. Even such
10% is taken as disability of the claimant, then, 10% of
₹.7,000/- is ₹.7,00 X 12 X 14=₹.1,17,600/-, as the age of
claimant was 43-44 years; However, the Tribunal has
awarded only ₹.84,000/- under the said head.
15. As far as nature of injuries to the claimant are
concerned, there were two grievous injuries on two vital
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
HC-KAR
parts of the body i.e., on right side of pelvic bone and the
right wrist and 6th and 7th ribs of right chest. Hence, even
the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at
₹.35,000/- by the Tribunal is on lower side. The
compensation awarded towards loss of income during laid
up period at ₹.12,000/- is also on lower side because the
claimant ought to have taken treatment and rest at least for
three months for the aforesaid injuries. Thus, the
compensation that could have been awarded under this
head would be ₹.21,000/-
16. As far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal
has awarded proper compensation. Hence, if total
compensation under these heads i.e., loss of income due to
disability, pain and suffering and laid up period is
considered, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal
at ₹.1,81,100/- is less than what actually the claimant is
entitled to. However, as the claimant has not preferred any
appeal, I have no other option but to confirm the award
passed by the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15338
HC-KAR
17. For the above reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is dismissed.
b) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH
CT-CMU
