Karnataka High Court

Sri. Bhimarai Bharama Naik vs Sri. Abhishek Ashok Badakar on 20 November, 2025

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                       -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB
                                                              MFA No. 104959 of 2023


                            HC-KAR




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                               PRESENT

                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                                  AND
                             THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104959 OF 2023 (MV-I)

                           BETWEEN:

                           SRI BHIMARAI BHARAMA NAIK
                           AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS,
                           OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
                           R/O. YAMKANAMARADI, TQ. HUKKERI,
                           DIST.BELAGAVI-591309.
                                                                          ...APPELLANT
                           (BY SRI. SUNIL KHOT, ADVOCATE)

                           AND:
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
                           1.    SRI ABHISHEK ASHOK BADAKAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
                                 AGE 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.27
10:29:25 +0530
                                 R/O. YAMKANAMARADI,
                                 TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591309.

                           2. THE IFFCO-TOKO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
                              LTD.,
                              SHIKSHAN BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD,
                              BELAGAVI 01.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SRI M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR 12;
                               NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
                                 -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB
                                        MFA No. 104959 of 2023


HC-KAR




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1645/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
            AND
            THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

The claimant being unsatisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded in MVC No.1645/2019 dated

05.09.2022 on the file of X Additional District Judge and

Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal') is before

this Court in this appeal under S.173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for enhancement of

compensation.

2. The parties would be referred to as they stood

before the Tribunal.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB

HC-KAR

3. The claimant is claiming the compensation in

respect of road traffic accident that had taken place on

11.06.2019 at 10.30 a.m. near old Gudagunti Road due to

rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle

bearing temporary Reg.No.MD-2A11CY3KCK33164. It is

contended in the claim petition that the claimant has

sustained injury to his right leg and took treatment as

inpatient in Vijaya Ortho and Trauma Center, Belagavi from

11.06.2019 to 15.06.2019 and also suffered chest pain and

took treatment as inpatient at Lakeview Hospital for 2 days.

The claimant was 67 years old at the time of accident and

earning ₹.20,000/- per month from cloth shop business and

agricultural work. Due to the injuries suffered in the

accident, he has become permanently disabled and lost his

earning capacity. The accident was solely due to the rash

and negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle belonging to

respondent No.1. Hence, claimed compensation under

different heads.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB

HC-KAR

4. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 did not

appear and did not contest the petition and thus placed ex-

parte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent appeared through its

counsel and filed objection statement, wherein it denied the

date, time, and manner of accident, the age, occupation,

and income of the claimant and all the averments made in

the claim petition. He further contended that he will take all

necessary defence, which is available to the insurer. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of petition.

6. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as

P.W.1 apart from examining doctor as P.W.2 and marking

Exs.P.1 to P.13 before the Tribunal. On behalf of

respondents, no evidence is let in except marking the copy

of insurance policy at Ex.R.1.

7. After recording evidence of both sides, hearing

arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the claimant has established that due to

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB

HC-KAR

rash and negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle

belonging to respondent No.1 the accident occurred and the

claimant sustained injuries in the accident i.e., fracture of

proximal 1/3rd of fibula and fracture of distal 1/3rd of tibia

and thereby granted compensation of ₹.2,59,757/- under

the following different heads:

         Pain and Suffering                       ₹.10,000/-

         Loss of earning capacity                 ₹.79,506/-

         Loss of amenities in life                ₹.30,000/-

         Loss of income during laid up            ₹.26,500/-
         period

         Attendant charges, food and              ₹.15,000/-
         nourishment, conveyance etc.

         Medical expenses                         ₹.98,751/-

                                       Total   ₹.2,59,757/-

8. Not satisfied with the aforesaid compensation,

the claimant/appellant is before this Court.

9. Learned counsel for appellant, Sri Sunil Khot

would submit that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the heads-pain and suffering, loss of earning

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB

HC-KAR

capacity, loss of amenities in life are on lower side and

hence, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer, Sri

M.K.Soudagar would submit that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is just and fair and it requires no

interference. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Having heard the arguments of both sides and

verifying the appeal papers, the only point that would arise

for our consideration is:

"Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced

compensation?"

12. Our finding on the above point is in 'affirmative'

for the following reasons:

13. The date, place and time of accident and the

manner in which the accident had taken place is admitted

by both sides. The age of claimant is 67 years, which is also

not in dispute. The injuries sustained by the claimant in the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB

HC-KAR

accident i.e., fracture of proximal 1/3rd of fibula and fracture

of distal 1/3rd of tibia is also not in dispute.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would

rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Sarnam Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance

Company Limited and Others reported in 2023 Live

Law (SC) 498 and would submit that if there is functional

disability to the claimant, then claimant is entitled for

compensation for such functional disability. He would

further submit that in the instant case, because of accident

the claimant is not in a position to earn anything and before

the accident he was getting income of ₹.20,000/- per month

from agriculture and also from cloth business. However, to

substantiate that the claimant is having disability, the

doctor is not examined and disability certificate is not

produced.

15. Further, to substantiate the income of claimant,

no document is produced. Hence, relying upon the chart

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB

HC-KAR

prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for

Lok-Adalat, the notional income of claimant is to be taken

at ₹.13,250/- as the accident occurred in the year 2019.

16. The claimant has suffered two fractures as stated

above and hence, the compensation awarded under the

head-pain and suffering by the Tribunal at ₹.10,000/- is

very less and towards loss of amenities in life at ₹30,000/-

is also on lower side. Hence, we are of the considered

opinion that claimant is entitled for additional

compensation of ₹.40,000/- and ₹.20,000/- under these

heads respectively i.e., totally ₹.50,000/- under the head-

pain and suffering and ₹.50,000/- under the head loss of

amenities in life, which would be just and fair compensation

to the claimant.

17. Hence, we hold that claimant is entitled for

additional compensation of ₹.60,000/- apart from the

compensation already granted by the Tribunal.

18. In view of the above, we pass the following:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB

HC-KAR

ORDER

a) Appeal is allowed in part.

b) The judgment and award dated 05.09.2022 passed

in MVC No.1645/2019 on the file of X Additional

District Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi is

modified holding that the claimant is entitled to

additional enhanced compensation of ₹.60,000/-

in addition to what has been awarded by the

Tribunal.

c) The enhanced compensation amount will bear

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

of claim petition till the date of realization.

d) The respondent No.2-Insurer shall deposit the

enhanced compensation amount with accrued

interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this

judgment.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15990-DB