Karnataka High Court
Shri.Gubbanaik Lagamappa Kuppani vs Shri.Basavani Yallappa Naik on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16118
MFA No. 103742 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103742 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI GUBBANAIK LAGAMAPPA KUPPANI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: YALLAPUR,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHWETHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NITIN BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI BASAVANI YALLAPPA NAIK,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GUTAGUDDI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF THE 407 PASSENGER
GIRIJA A. TEMPO KA-29-4604)
BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
(INSURER OF THE 407 PASSENGER
TEMPO KA-29-4604)
POLICY NO.24010031112-P-300787215
VALID FROM 19.10.2012 TO 18.10.2013)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16118
MFA No. 103742 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.535/2013 PASSED BY THE X
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER
ADDITIONAL MACT, BELAGAVI, SET ASIDE THE SAME AND
MODIFY THE AWARD DATED 01/04/2016 ENHANCING THE SAME
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Ms.Swetha Kulkarni, who represents Sri Nitin
Bolabandi, learned counsel on record for the appellant, as
well as Sri N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is
passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Belagavi in MVC 535 of 2013 dated 01.04.2016. This is a
claimant's appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16118
HC-KAR
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
appellant states that the appellant sustained fracture of
both ramous of left pubis which is grievous in nature. The
appellant spent huge amount for his treatment and though
he took treatment as inpatient, he is left with permanent
physical disability. The appellant produced the evidence of
PW18 who stated that the disability is 15% in respect of left
lower limb. But without considering the evidence thus
produced, the tribunal awarded very meager sum as
compensation and therefore the present appeal is filed.
Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in
compensation.
4. On the other hand Sri N.R.Kuppelur learned
counsel for respondent No.2 states that the aspect of
disability was not established by the appellant in clear
terms. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant
failed to produce material documents to establish his claim
and therefore the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,200/- in
total. Learned counsel however finally states that in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16118
HC-KAR
light of the submission that is made by learned counsel for
the appellant there may be marginal enhancement.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
fracture of both ramous left pubis and took treatment as
inpatient for 8 days. The tribunal granted a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards 'pain and suffering', Rs.15,000/- for
'transportation, food and attendant charges', Rs.10,000/-
towards 'loss of amenities in life' and Rs.10,200/- for
medical expenses. Thus totally the tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.75,200/- as compensation. The evidence of PW18 is
that the disability is 15% which is permanent and physical
in respect of left lower limb. For the reasons best known,
the appellant failed to produce the discharge card and the
summary sheet. However undisputedly, the appellant
sustained a grievous injury and took treatment as inpatient
for a period of 8 days.
6. Having considered the nature of injury sustained,
this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16118
HC-KAR
attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 3
months. Also the appellant has to lead his rest of the life,
with disability at least to an extent of 4% to 5% in respect
of whole body. Thus considering all these factors, this Court
is of the view that the appellant is entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.75,000/- globally. Therefore the appeal is
disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Belagavi through orders in MVC 535 of 2013
dated 01.04.2016 is enhanced by
Rs.75,000/-.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(iv) Failure on part of respondent No.2 to deposit
the enhanced sum within the time granted,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16118
HC-KAR
will lead to payment of interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of deposit.
(v) On deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
