Karnataka High Court
Dondiba vs Mayakka And Anr on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6957
MFA No. 200753 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200753 OF 2022 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
DONDIBA,
S/O SADASHIV KARADE,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER AND AGRICULTURE,
NOW NIL, R/O SEVALAL NAGAR,
SOLAPUR, VIJAYAPURA BY PASS ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SMT. MAYAKKA,
signed by W/O SADASHIV KARADE,
SUMITRA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF CAR
SHERIGAR (INDICA CAR BEARING NO.KA-28-M-6918),
Location: R/O SEVALALNAGAR, SOLAPUR,
HIGH COURT VIJAYAPUR BY PASS ROAD,
OF
KARNATAKA VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD.,
DB PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, 47 WHITES ROAD,
CHANNAI(T.N.)-600 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DATED 08.11.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6957
MFA No. 200753 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EC ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S
COMPENSATION, VIJAYAPURA IN ECA NO. 176/2014 DATED
26-08-2019 BY MODIFYING AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITIONE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA)
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
and CJM and Commissioner for Employee's Compensation,
Vijayapura in ECA No.176/2014 dated 26.08.2019 to
modify the said judgment and enhance the compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order
dated 08.11.2022.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6957
HC-KAR
3. Brief facts of the case is that the injured claimant
aged 24 years working as a driver, met with an accident
on 04.03.2012 and he filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering
the entire evidence on record granted Rs.44,066/- with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.02.2012 till
the deposit of entire amount.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an
appeal and mainly contended that the doctor assessed
disability of 8% to the whole body, but the tribunal has
taken only 3%. He sustained 100% loss of earning
capacity. He was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and batta
of Rs.50. But the tribunal has taken only Rs.5,000/- per
month. The following substantial question of law was
framed,
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves
that he was working as a driver on Indica
car bearing reg. No.KA-28/M-6918 under
the employment of respondent No.1?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6957
HC-KAR
2. Whether the petitioner proves
that on 04.03.2012, at about 08.30 PM,
in the course of employment, near
Shivagiri Dhaba, Vijayapura met with an
accident and sustained injuries?
3. Whether respondent No.2
proves the violation and terms of
insurance policy?
4. Whether petitioner is entitled
for compensation, if so to what quantum
and from which respondent?
5. What order or award?
Hence prayed for enhancement of the amount.
5. The petitioner was working as a driver under the
employment of respondent No.1, and he met with an
accident in the year 2012. As per the notification dated
31.05.2010, he is entitled for income at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per month. As per Ex.P.5 issued by Bijapur
Multispeciality Hospital, Bijapur shows that the petitioner
sustained fracture of fibula left (Neck), fracture base of
5th metatarsal left foot, abrasion over left knee and
abrasion over left head. PW2 stated that he was treated
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6957
HC-KAR
by applying POP plaster for 12 months and assessed the
disability of 6 to 8 % in relation to left lower limb.
6. Learned counsel for respondent contended that he
assessed the disability, only 7 years after the accident, as
such the tribunal has rightly taken 3% and it needs no
interference. Whereas the appellant counsel contended
that the appellant/claimant is a driver and he sustained
two fractures and it will definitely affect his functional
disability and as such his functional disability is to be
taken as 8%. Considering the occupation of the
petitioner, as a driver and the nature of injuries sustained,
this court finds it reasonable to take the disability
assessed by the doctor as 8% instead of 3% by the
tribunal.
7. Hence, 60% of Rs.8,000/- is Rs.4,800 x relevant
factor is 218.47 x 8% = Rs.83,892/- and also the
petitioner is entitled towards medical expenses of
Rs.25,000/-. The total compensation comes to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6957
HC-KAR
Rs.1,08,892/-. Enhanced from Rs.44,660/- to
Rs.1,08,892/-.
8. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,08,892/- along with interest at the
rate of 12% p.a., instead of Rs.44,660/- as granted by the
tribunal.
10. In the result, the following order is passed:
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award passed by Prl.
Senior Civil Judge and CJM and
Commissioner for Employee's
Compensation, Vijayapyra in ECA
No.176/2014 dated 26.08.2019, is
modified.
iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,08,892/- along with interest at the
rate of 12% p.a., from the date of petition
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6957
HC-KAR
till the date of realization, instead of
Rs.44,660/- granted by the tribunal.
iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance company
already deposited the amount awarded by
the tribunal and is directed to deposit the
remaining amount of Rs.64,232/-
(Rs.1,08,892-44,660) along with interest at
the rate of 12% p.a., within one month
from the date of this order.
v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount along with
interest accrued on the same, and
sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKV
