Karnataka High Court
Annappa S/O. Appanna Dhanagar vs R Shivasankar S/O. Ramasamy on 21 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
MFA No. 101172 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101172 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ANNAPPA S/O. APPANNA DHANAGAR
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER NOW NILL
R/O. NILAJI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591217.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. R. SHIVASANKAR S/O. RAMASAMY
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINES
R/O.NO.10 S.S.S. BUILDING,
A.V.ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
BENGALURU, 21, NEAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
AYYAPPA TEMPLE, ATTIBELE,
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.27
10:40:17 +0530
ANEKAL, TQ AND DIST. BENGALURU-562106
(OWNER OF BORE WELL
TRUCK NO. KA-51/MD-8777)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1732, RAMADEV GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001. (INSURER OF BORE WELL
TRUCK NO. KA-51/MD-8777)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE SERVED TO R1 DISPENSED WITH;
SRI S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH VC))
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
MFA No. 101172 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
26.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1146/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER OF
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI
AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY AWARDING COMPENSATION AS
PRAYED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded under the judgment and award
passed in MVC No.1146/2017 dated 26.03.2021 on the file
of II Additional Sessions Judge and member of Additional
MACT, Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before the tribunal for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. Claimant has filed claim petition under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
respect of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic
accident that had taken place on 20.05.2017 at about
20:40 hours on Sankeshwar-Halakarni road in front of
Tahasildar Petrol Pump, Halakarni village involving the
Bore-well truck bearing No.KA-51/MD-8777.
4. The case of claimant in nutshell is that due to the
accident he sustained fracture of femur bone and admitted
to Hattarki Hospital, Gadhingalaj for a period of 13 days
from 20.05.2017 to 03.06.2017 and undergone an
operation and spent about ₹.1,00,000/- towards medicine
and other incidental expenses; he was aged about 32 years
at the time of accident and was driver by profession and
earning ₹.15,000/- per month; Now because of the
accident, he cannot pursue his profession as driver and
thus there is 100% functional disability to him; The doctor,
who examined him has opined that there is 40%
permanent disability to his right lower limb. Hence, prayed
for granting compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
5. On receipt of notice of petition, respondent No.1
has not filed objections to the petition; whereas,
respondent No.2-insurer has filed its objection statement
wherein it has taken all the available defence to insurer-
cum-owner and denied the accident in question and the
injuries sustained by the claimant and also the amount
spent by him towards treatment, etc. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as
P.W.1 apart from examining the doctor as P.W.2 and
marking Exs.P.1 to P.19 before the Tribunal. On behalf of
respondents, no evidence was let in except marking
insurance policy as Ex.R.1 with consent.
7. After recording evidence of both sides and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the claimant has sustained fracture of right
femur bone and he has produced medical bills amounting
to ₹.33,500/-, but he has not produced any other material
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
to show that he was inpatient in the hospital and the
Tribunal has not believed the evidence of P.W.2-doctor and
disability certificate-Ex.P.18 issued by the doctor and thus
awarded only global compensation of ₹.50,000/- to the
claimant.
8. Not being satisfied with the global compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, appellant/claimant is before this
Court.
9. Heard arguments of both sides.
10. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Prashant
Mathapati would submit that the claimant has produced all
relevant materials before the Tribunal to show that he
sustained fracture of femur bone and he sustained
permanent disability of 40% to the right lower limb.
However, the Tribunal has not believed the evidence of
P.W.2 and Ex.P.18 only on the ground that the claimant
has not produced any document to show that he was in-
patient in the hospital after the accident and hence not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
awarded compensation under the heads- pain and agony,
loss of income during laid up period, loss of amenities, etc.
He would further submit that the claimant is entitled for
compensation under the head-loss of future of earnings by
considering the disability at least 13% to the whole body
by relying upon Ex.P.18 and the evidence of P.W.2-docotr.
Hence, prayed for modification of the judgment to that
extent.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer
would submit that the claimant has not produced any
material to show that he was admitted to the hospital and
thus the certificate issued by the doctor is not believed by
the Tribunal and there is proper appreciation of evidence
on this point. Hence, granting of global compensation to
the claimant is just and fair and it needs no interference.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides and
verifying the appeal papers and also the original records of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
Tribunal, the only point that would arise for consideration
is:
"Whether the claimant is entitled for
enhanced compensation?"
13. The finding of this Court on the above point is in
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
14. The date, place and time of accident and the
injuries sustained by claimant in the said accident are not
seriously disputed. Ex.P.5-the injury certificate reveals that
there was fracture of right femur bone to the claimant.
According to this certificate, this claimant was admitted to
Hattarki Hospital and Trauma Center on 21.05.2017 at
10.00 p.m. This document does not reveal that whether he
was inpatient in the hospital and if so for how many days
he was in the hospital. It does not reveal the I.P. number
of admission of the patient. The other documents produced
by the claimant also do not reveal the admission of the
patient to the hospital. On the other hand, he has produced
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
O.P.D. slips as per Exs.P.7 to P.11 of Hattarki Hospital and
Trauma Center said to be belonged to the claimant.
According to these documents, the age of the claimant is
65 years; whereas claimant contends that his age is 35
years as on the date of accident. Hence, it appears that
these documents are not of claimant.
15. As far as Exs.P.12 and P.13 are concerned, they
are issued by one Sri Sai Hospital, wherein the age of
claimant is mentioned as 35 years and he has taken
treatment there for 3 months' old fracture of femur. Even
in Ex.P.14-hospital bill, it is not mentioned that claimant
has taken treatment as inpatient. If this bill was issued to
inpatient, then I.P. number will be mentioned, but it is not
forthcoming in Ex.P.14.
16. Ex.P.17 is the certificate issued by Shreyas
Diagnostic Centre stating that there is mal-united fracture
middle 1/3rd shaft of the right femur to the claimant.
Ex.P.18 is the disability certificate issued by a private
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
doctor. He is not the treated doctor. Even in this certificate,
it is stated that as per the say of the patient, he was
inpatient in the hospital for 13 days. This is also not
clarified.
17. Considering some of these aspects, the Tribunal
has not believed the evidence of P.W.2 that the claimant
has suffered 40% disability to his right lower limb. The said
finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence, which
needs no interference.
18. However, there is no dispute that the claimant
has sustained fracture of right femur which is a major bone
of right leg. Hence, he is entitled for compensation under
other heads i.e., loss of amenities, loss of income during
laid up period, pain and suffering and medical expenses.
19. The Tribunal has noticed that there are medical
bills amount to ₹.33,500/- produced by the claimant.
However, apart from this bill, the claimant has also
produced the medical bill of Sri Sai Fracture and Accident
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
Hospital amounting to ₹.50,650/-. Hence, the claimant is
entitled for the said amount along with ₹.33.500/- i.e.,
₹.84.150/- under the head-medical expenses.
20. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by
the claimant, the claimant is entitled for ₹.30,000/-
towards pain and suffering and ₹.20,000/- towards loss of
amenities. The claimant had sustained fracture of femur
bone and he ought to have taken rest for the injuries
sustained by him. Hence, the claimant is entitled for
₹10,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.
21. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for
₹.1,44,150/- as against ₹.50,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
22. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is partly allowed.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16049
HC-KAR
b) The judgment and award passed MVC
No.1146/2017 dated 26.03.2021 on the file of II
Additional Sessions Judge and Additional MACT,
Belagavi is modified holding that the claimant is
entitled for ₹.1,44,150/- as against ₹.50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation.
d) The respondent-insurer shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with accrued interest before
the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
e) The amount awarded to the claimant is meager.
Hence, release the entire amount of compensation
to the claimant on proper identification.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SH
