Karnataka High Court

Ram Milan Yadav vs Anita And Anr on 13 November, 2025

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB
                                                         MFA No. 201682 of 2024


                      HC-KAR




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                          KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                               PRESENT

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                                  AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY

                           MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201682 OF 2024 (MV-I)

                      BETWEEN:

                            RAM MILAN YADAV
                            S/O BHIARODEEN YADAV,
                            AGE: 42 YEARS,
                            OCC: DRIVER NOW NIL,
                            R/AT: H.NO.29/11, KONDI,
                            TQ AND DIST SOLAPUR,
                            NOW R/O: CIB COLONY,
                            KALABURAGI - 585 103.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT

Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA          (BY SRI NARENDRA M.REDDY, ADVOCATE)
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             AND:

                      1.    ANITA
                            W/O YALLAPPA BHARALE,
                            AGE: MAJOR,
                            OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
                            R/O: A/P-SOREGAON VIJAYPURA ROAD,
                            TQ AND DIST SOLAPUR - 413 001.

                      2.    BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
                            THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
                            MAJESTIC 1ST FLOOR, KALABURAGI NOOLVI,
                            NEW COTTON MARKET HUBLI - 580 029,
                            -2-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB
                                  MFA No. 201682 of 2024


HC-KAR




     POLICY NO.OG-22-4845-1831-00000327
     W.E.F.11.02.2022 TO 10.02.2023.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 23.11.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND    AWARD    DATED     21-12-2023   ENHANCE    THE
COMPENSATION TO RS.52,00,000/- AS PRAYED BY THE
APPELLANT HEREIN MVC NO.606/2022 BY THE HON'BLE COURT
OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI. BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

    THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
         AND
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
                   ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been

filed by the claimant challenging the judgment dated

21.12.2023 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge

& MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC No.606/2022.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly

stated are that on 29.03.2022, the claimant had loaded

the diesel in the Tanker bearing Registration No.MH-

16/AE-3131 and unloaded the diesel at Latur Petrol Pump.

After unloading the diesel, at about 11.00 hours, the

claimant stopped at Kasegaon for dinner. After having

meals, the claimant proceeded on his tanker as driver, on

Psarevasti to old Tuljapur Naka road, near Bridge, Solapur,

at that time, the driver of the Tipper bearing Registration

No.MH-12/DT-7398, being driven by its driver in rash and

negligent manner and suddenly applied brake. As a result

of the same, the claimant dashed to its back side. Due to

impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was

hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent

significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance

charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition. The

respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear

before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and

award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that

the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.15,69,608/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the

following contentions:

a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning

Rs.30,000/- per month by working as driver. However, the

Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as

Rs.14,750/- per month.

b) Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has

suffered amputation of his right lower limb above the

knee. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. In his

evidence, he has deposed that the claimant has suffered

physical disability of 80%. However, the Tribunal has

undervalued the claimant's whole-body disability at 50%,

which contradicts the evidence of the doctor.

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

a period of 8 days. Even after discharge from the hospital,

he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He

has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the

same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

on the lower side and the Tribunal has failed to grant any

compensation towards 'future prospects' and 'future

medical expenses'.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to allow the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company has raised the following counter-

contentions:

a) Firstly, the assertion of claimant that he was earning

Rs.30,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to

lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of

income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the

claimant notionally.

b) Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries

sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has

rightly assessed the whole body disability at 50%.

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant and considering the age and avocation of the

claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant

interference.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to dismiss the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained

injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 29.03.2022

due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

by its driver.

10. The Tribunal, after considering the material available

on record and considering the year of accident i.e. 2022,

has rightly assessed the notional income of the claimant at

Rs.14,750/- p.m.

11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained

crush injury to right lower limb, fracture of midshaft tibia

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

and proximal and distal fibula. He has examined the doctor

as PW-2. In his evidence, he has deposed that the

claimant has suffered amputation of his right lower limb

above the knee and assessed the physical disability of

80%.

12. Even as per the Schedule-1, Part-II, at Sl.No.17 of

the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the

injury for amputation below hip with stump, the

percentage of loss of earning capacity has to be

considered at 80%. Taking into consideration the

deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the

wound certificate, age and avocation of the claimant, we

are the opinion that the whole body disability is assessed

at 80%. Since the claimant has suffered amputation of his

right lower limb above the knee and has suffered whole-

body disability of 80%, and he is not able to do his regular

work, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of 'PAPPU DEO YADAV vs. NARESH

KUMAR AND OTHERS' 2020 SCC Online SC 752 and

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

'ERUDHAYA PRIYA vs. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT

CORPORATION LTD. 2020' SCC Online SC 601, the

claimant is entitled to additional compensation towards

'future prospects'. In view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'NATIONAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC

5157, future prospects at 40% has to be added. Thus, the

income of the claimant comes to Rs.20,650/-

(Rs.14,750/-+40%).

13. The claimant is aged about 38 years at the time of

the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is

'15'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.29,73,600/- (Rs.20,650*12*15*80%) on account of

'loss of future income'.

14. The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant

must have been under rest and treatment for a period of

3 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

compensation of Rs.44,250/- (Rs.14,750*3 months)

under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

15. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was

hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 8 days in the

hospital. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment

as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor,

we are inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and under the head of 'loss

of amenities' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

16. In respect of the future medical expenses, the

doctor, who examined the claimant has not spoken about

any future medical expenses, and no documents have

been produced to prove that the clailmant requires any

future medical expenses. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly

not granted any compensation under that head.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6815-DB

HC-KAR

17. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and

reasonable.

18. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

compensation:

                                 As awarded         As awarded
                                   by the           by this Court
      Compensation under          Tribunal              (Rs.)
        different Heads             (Rs.)

 Pain and sufferings                       40,000         70,000

 Medical expenses                        1,32,608       1,32,608

 Food, nourishment,                        20,000         20,000
 conveyance and attendant
 charges

 Loss of income during laid                29,500         44,250
 up period

 Loss of amenities                         20,000         40,000

 Loss of future income                  13,27,500      29,73,600

                 Total                  15,69,608     32,80,458

19. In the result, the following order is passed: