Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Shashigauda S/O Ohanumanthagouda ... on 21 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102543 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102274 OF 2018
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102275 OF 2018
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102276 OF 2018
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102542 OF 2018
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102544 OF 2018
IN M.F.A.NO.102543/2018
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GIRIJA A. DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
BYAHATTI
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
HUBLI-580 020,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHASHIGAUDA
S/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O: HATTIMATTUR-581 118,
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
2. SATTESH S/O. SRIDHAR PAI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER,
K.V.G. BANK, NAREGAL-582 119,
(OWNER OF MARUTI SWIFT CAR
NO.KA-25/P-0795)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. GIREESH C. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE AWARD DATED 06.03.2018
PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI IN M.V.C.102/2016
AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, INCLUDING THE COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.102274/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SHASHIGOUDA
S/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR,
TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. RAVIGOUDA
S/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR,
TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
NOW R/AT: BENGALURU.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
AND:
1. SATTESH S/O. SRIDHAR PAI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER KVG BANK,
NAREGAL, DIST: GADAG-582 119.
(OWNER OF MARUTI SWIFT CAR NO.KA-25/P-0795)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580 023.
(POLICY NO.472792/31/2015/5833
VALID FROM 13-09-2014 TO 12-09-2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.2,75,000/- TO
RS.35,50,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 06.03.2018 IN MVC
NO.101/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.102275/2018:
BETWEEN:
SHASHIGOUDA
S/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR,
TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
1. SATTESH S/O. SRIDHAR PAI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER KVG BANK,
NAREGAL, DIST: GADAG-582 119.
(OWNER OF MARUTI SWIFT CAR NO.KA-25/P-0795)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580 023.
(POLICY NO.472792/31/2015/5833
VALID FROM 13-09-2014 TO 12-09-2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.3,73,886/- TO
RS.75,35,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 06.03.2018 IN MVC
NO.102/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.102276/2018:
BETWEEN:
SIDDANAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
SINCE MINOR R/BY NEXT FRIEND NATURAL FATHER
BASANAGOUDA A/F SIDDANAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
1. SATTESH S/O. SRIDHAR PAI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER KVG BANK,
NAREGAL, DIST: GADAG-582 119.
(OWNER OF MARUTI SWIFT CAR NO.KA-25/P-0795)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580 023.
(POLICY NO.472792/31/2015/5833
VALID FROM 13-09-2014 TO 12-09-2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.7,32,941/- TO
RS.75,00,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 06.03.2018 IN MVC
NO.103/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.102542/2018
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHASHIGOUDA
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
S/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR-581 118,
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. RAVIGOUDA
S/O. HANUMANTHAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR-581 118,
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI,
NOW R/AT. BENGALORU.
3. SATTESH S/O. SRIDHAR PAI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER,
K.V.G. BANK, NAREGAL-582 119,
(OWNER OF MARUTI SWIFT CAR NO.KA-25/P-0795)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. GIREESH C. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE AWARD DATED 06.03.2018
PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI IN M.V.C.101/2016
AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, INCLUDING THE COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.102544/2018:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIDDANGAUDA BASANGAUDA HALLI,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY NEXT FRIEND FATHER
BASANAGAUDA A/F SIDDANAGOUDA HALLI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR-581118,
TAL: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SATTESH S/O. SRIDHAR PAI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER,
K.V.G. BANK, NAREGAL-582 112,
(OWNER OF MARUTI SWIFT CAR NO.KA-25/P-0795)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. GIREESH C. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND THE AWARD DATED 06.03.2018
PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI IN M.V.C.103/2016
AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, INCLUDING THE COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
MFA No. 102543 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 102274 of 2018
HC-KAR
MFA No. 102275 of 2018
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Ms. Ratnamala G. H. learned counsel for the
appellants in MFA 102543 of 2018, MFA 102542 of 2018
and MFA 102544 of 2018 who is also representing
respondent No.2 in the connected appeals. Also heard Sri
Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani learned counsel for the
appellants in MFA 102274 of 2018, MFA 102275 of 2018
and MFA 102276 of 2018, who is also representing
respondent No.1 in the connected appeals.
2. Though Sri Gireesh C. Kattimani is on record for
respondent No.2 in MFA 102543 of 2018, respondent No.3
in MFA 102542 of 2018 and respondent No.2 in MFA 102544
of 2018, there is no representation.
3. For the sake of convenience of discussion, the
rival parties to the appeals will be referred hereinafter as
'the insurance company' and 'the claimants'.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
4. All the six appeals arises out of the common
order that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Haveri in MVC 101 of 2016, MVC 102 of 2016 and MVC 103
of 2016 dated 06.03.2018.
5. MFA 102542 of 2018 is filed by the insurance
company and MFA 102274 of 2018 is filed by the claimants
challenging the order in MVC 101 of 2016. MFA 102543 of
2018 is filed by the insurance company and MFA 102275 of
2018 is filed by the claimant challenging the order in MVC
102 of 2016. Likewise MFA 102544 of 2018 is filed by the
insurance company and MFA 102276 of 2018 is filed by the
claimant challenging the order in MVC 103 of 2016.
6. As per the submission that is made by both the
learned counsel i.e., Ms. Ratnamala G. H., learned counsel
who represents the insurance company and Sri
Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani learned counsel for the
claimants, the insurance company filed appeals challenging
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
its liability to pay compensation and also on the ground that
the compensation granted is high and excessive in each of
the cases. The claimants filed the appeals raising a
contention that they are entitled more than the sum that is
awarded by the tribunal as compensation.
7. So far as the liability to pay compensation to the
claimants in all the three cases is concerned, Ms. Ratnamala
G.H., submits that the accident occurred solely due to the
rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle
which is involved in the accident. The driver of the swift car
which is involved in the accident was not at fault. Further
three persons were present on the motorcycle when the
accident occurred and triple riding has caused the accident
to occur. Without considering these facts, the tribunal
fastened the liability against the insurance company i.e.,
the insurer of the car which is involved in the accident.
Learned counsel thereby seeks to exonerate the insurance
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
company from liability to pay compensation to the
claimants.
8. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made,
Sri Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani, learned counsel for the
claimants contends that the claimants produced sufficient
material to show that the accident solely occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the swift car.
Entire police record speaks against the driver of the swift
car. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the insurance
company to establish its version that the accident occurred
either due to triple riding or due to negligence on part of the
rider of the motorcycle which is involved in the accident.
Therefore the tribunal rightly held that the insurer of the
swift car is liable to answer the claim.
9. The manner of happening of accident as
projected by the claimants before the tribunal is that on
10.05.2015 at about 10:15 a.m. while the claimant in MVC
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
102 of 2016, the claimant in MVC 103 of 2016 and the
father of the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016 were proceeding
on a motorcycle and when they reached near Mukti Dhama,
ones swift car bearing registration No.KA.25/P.0795 which
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
dashed against the motorcycle due to which the accident
occurred.
10. Learned counsel for the insurance company failed
to deny the submission of learned counsel for the claimants
that the case was registered against the driver of the car
and after investigation charge sheet was also laid against
the said driver.
11. The insurance company has taken a specific plea
that the rider of the motorcycle was at fault. However the
insurance company did not choose to produce the evidence
either oral or documentary to establish the said fact. No
material whatsoever is on record to show that either on
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
account triple riding or due to the negligence of the rider of
the motorcycle the accident occurred.
12. On the other hand by all the evidence produced
the claimants succeeded in establishing that the driver of
the car alone was at fault. Therefore this Court is of the
view that the tribunal did not err in fastening liability
against the insurance company who was the insurer of the
car at the relevant time.
13. Proceeding further, it has to be seen whether the
compensation granted by the tribunal in each case is
exorbitant as contented by the insurance company, is on
lower side as contented by the claimants or whether it is
justifiable.
Discussion on the amount awarded as
compensation to the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016.
14. The sons of the deceased Hanumantha Gouda
(hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased') raised a claim
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
on the ground that the deceased was an agriculturist as on
the date of accident and due to his death they lost their
livelihood. The tribunal apart from granting Rs.2,00,000/-
globally towards 'loss of estate', granted a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards 'funeral expenses and for
'transportation of dead body' and Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss
of love and affection'.
15. Learned counsel for the insurance company failed
to justify her version that the said amount is high and
excessive. Learned counsel for the claimants states that
though by producing Exs.P8 to P11 Record of Rights, the
claimants established that the deceased was an
agriculturist, the tribunal without applying the principles laid
down in the cases of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another1 and National Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi2 awarded compensation of
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
Rs.2,00,000/- globally which is unjustifiable. Learned
counsel further submits that the accident occurred in the
year 2015 and for the relevant period, for settlement of
claims, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad
is taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month and
at least said figure should have been considered by the
tribunal.
16. The submission that is made by learned counsel
for the claimants appears justifiable. Having considered the
submission made, this Court is of the view that the notional
income of the deceased is required to be taken as
Rs.8,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the deceased
was aged around 59 years by the date of accident. Thus as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case, 10% of the earnings are required to be added towards
future prospects. The dependents are admittedly 2 in
number. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
Court in Sarla Verma's case, 1/3rd of the earnings of the
deceased is required to be deducted towards personal and
living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for
himself had he been alive. Also the appropriate multiplier to
be applied as per the aforementioned decision is '9'. Thus
with these parameters, the compensation which the
claimants are entitled to receive towards loss of dependency
is as under:
Notional monthly income Rs.8,000/-
Annual income Rs.96,000/-
On adding 10% towards future Rs.1,05,600/-
prospects
On deducting 1/3rd towards Rs.70,400/-
personal and living expenses
'Loss of dependency', on applying Rs.6,33,600/-
appropriate multiplier '9'
17. Thus it is clear that the claimants are entitled to
a sum of Rs.6,33,600/- towards 'loss of dependency'.
Together with the said amount the claimants are entitled to
Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards
'loss of estate' and Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of parental
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
consortium'. Thus the total amount which the claimants are
entitled to is as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 6,33,600/-
Funeral expenses 10,000/-
Loss of estate 10,000/-
Loss of parental consortium 40,000/-
Total 6,93,600/-
18. Thus it is clear that the claimants are entitled to
a sum of Rs.6,93,600/-. However the tribunal granted a
sum of Rs.2,75,000/- only. Therefore this Court is of the
view that the appeal filed by the claimants is required to be
allowed in part.
Discussion on the amount awarded as
compensation to the claimants in MVC 102 of 2016.
19. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,886/- as
compensation to the claimant in this case. Learned counsel
for the insurance company could not state how the said
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
amount is high and excessive. Learned counsel for the
claimant contends that the claimant by working as Field
Manager in a factory was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
Learned counsel states that the claimant sustained multiple
grievous and simple injuries and took treatment as inpatient
for considerable period. The claimant produced the evidence
of PW4, who clearly stated that the disability is 45% in
total. However, the tribunal took the disability as 6% only.
Also the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.7,500/- per
month. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in
the year 2015 and for the relevant period the High Court
Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional
income as Rs.8,000/- per month and hence the notional
income of the claimant has to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per
month even on the lower side.
20. By all the evidence produced, the claimant
succeeded in establishing that he sustained 4 grievous
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
injuries and 3 simple injuries. The evidence of PW4 is that
the disability in respect of right upper limb is 25% and in
respect of left upper limb is 20%. However the tribunal took
the disability in respect of whole body as 6%. Considering
the nature of injuries sustained as found in Ex.P.12 wound
certificate and the evidence of PW.4, this Court is of the
view that the disability in respect of whole body can be
considered to be 10% which is permanent in nature. It is
not in dispute that the claimant was aged around 24 years
by the date of accident. Thus the appropriate multiplier to
be applied is '18'. Hence taking the notional income of the
claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month, the disability in respect
of whole body as 10% and the multiplier to be applied as
'18', the compensation which the claimant is entitled to
receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.1,72,800/-
(8,000x12x18x10%).
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
21. Having considered the fact that the claimant
sustained 4 grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries, this
Court is of the view that the claimant could not have
attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 5
months. Thus 'loss of earnings during laid up period' comes
to Rs.40,000/- (8,000x5). Also considering the totality of
evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the
compensation which the claimant is entitled to receive
under each head is as under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards pain and suffering 55,000/-
Towards food, extra
nourishment, conveyance and 10,000/-
attendant charges
Loss of future earnings 1,72,800/-
Loss of income during laid-up
40,000/-
period
Towards medical expenses 1,86,686/-
Towards Loss of amenities 10,000/-
Total 4,74,486/-
22. Thus the foregoing discussion makes it clear that
the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,74,486/-. The
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,73,886/- only as
compensation. Hence this Court is of the view that the
appeal filed by the claimant is required to be allowed in
part.
Discussion on the amount awarded as
compensation to the claimant in MVC 103 of 2016.
23. The claimant admittedly was aged around 8
years as on the date of accident. There is no denial of the
fact that the claimant was treated conservatively for the
injuries sustained. The tribunal granted a sum of
Rs.7,32,941/- as compensation. Learned counsel for the
insurance company failed to make out her case that the
compensation granted is exorbitant. Likewise learned
counsel for the claimant could not establish that the
claimant is entitled to a higher sum than the amount that is
awarded by the tribunal. Therefore this Court is of the view
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
that there are no grounds to interfere with the sum that is
awarded as compensation to the claimant in this case.
24. Thus, all the six appeals are disposed of with the
following:
ORDER
(i) MFA 102542 of 2018, MFA 102543 of 2018
and MFA 102544 of 2018 are dismissed.
(ii) MFA 102276 of 2018 is dismissed.
(iii) MFA 102274 of 2018 and MFA 102275 of 2018
are allowed in part.
(iv) The compensation that is granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri
through orders in MVC 101 of 2016 is
enhanced from Rs.2,75,000/- to
Rs.6,93,600/-.
(v) The compensation that is granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
through orders in MVC 102 of 2016 is
enhanced from Rs.3,73,886/- to
Rs.4,74,486/-.
(vi) The enhanced sum in both the cases shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of presentation of respective
claim petitions till the date of deposit.
(vii) The insurance company is directed to deposit
the enhanced sum in both the cases within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
(viii) The apportionment made by the tribunal
among the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016
applies to enhanced sum as well.
(ix) On deposit, the claimants in MVC 101 of 2016
and the claimant in MVC 102 of 2016 are
entitled for withdrawal of the deposited
amount.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16042
HC-KAR
MFA NO. 102276 of 2018
MFA NO. 102542 of 2018
MFA NO. 102544 of 2018
(x) Amount if any in deposit made by the
insurance company in any of the appeals be
transmitted to the concerned tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
