Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O Irappa Hubballi vs The Divisional Manager on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16100
MFA No. 101855 of 2017
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.101855 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ S/O. IRAPPA HUBBALLI,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O. C/O. V.S. KULAKARNI,
RTD ENGINEER,
2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN, VINAYAK NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
GIRIJA A. ...APPELLANT
BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
(BY MS. SUDHA HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KSRTC, HAVERI DIVISION,
HAVERI.
2. SANGEETHA @ MALLAMMA
W/O. ANILKUMAR PAWAR,
AGE: MAJOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16100
MFA No. 101855 of 2017
HC-KAR
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. NOW C/O. MALLAMMA
D/O. BASAPPA MILLI,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V.A. KALBURGI, HALLMARK BUILDING,
DESAI CROSS,
PINTO ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.G. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
MS. ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
FROM THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED
JUDGE IN M.V.C. NO.1/2014 DATED 14TH JANUARY 2016 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR AND COST OF
THE APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16100
MFA No. 101855 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Ms. Sudha Hulmani, who represents Sri
G.S.Hulmani, learned counsel on record for the appellant
and Ms. Anusha, who represents Sri S.K.Kayakamath,
learned counsel on record for respondent No.3. Both the
learned counsel appeared through Video Conference.
Though Sri A.G.Hiremath is on record representing
respondent No.1, learned counsel failed to appear and
argue the matter. Likewise though notice was served upon
respondent No.2, respondent No.2 failed to contest the
matter.
2. The appellant, who is the claimant in MVC 1 of
2014, which stood pending before the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur and was disposed of
through order dated 14.01.2016, aggrieved by the sum that
is awarded as compensation, is before this Court seeking
enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16100
HC-KAR
3. Making her submission in respect of merits of the
matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the
appellant sustained two grievous and two simple injuries in
a road traffic accident. The tribunal without considering the
evidence produced, awarded meager sum as compensation
under all conventional heads. Learned counsel further
submits that no sum is awarded as compensation for the
loss, the appellant sustained during laid up period. Learned
counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends
that the tribunal having perceived the fact that the
appellant was a government servant as on the date of
accident and he did not sustain any loss of earnings, failed
to award any sum as compensation towards 'loss of income
during laid up period'. Learned counsel further submits that
in the light of the submission that is made by learned
counsel for the appellant, there may be marginal
enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16100
HC-KAR
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
fracture of right humerous and fracture of lateral condyle of
tibia left, which injuries are grievous in nature, apart from
two other simple injuries. The tribunal granted a sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards 'pain and suffering', Rs.1,500/- towards
conveyance, diet, extra nourishment and attendant charges
and Rs.1,000/- towards 'loss of amenities in life'. Totally the
tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-. No evidence
whatsoever is on record in proof of the expenditure which
the appellant had actually incurred for his treatment.
Likewise no evidence is produced to show that the appellant
applied leave during the period of treatment and that there
was loss of earnings for the said period. However the
compensation that is granted by the tribunal is grossly low.
The appellant who sustained fracture of right humerous and
fracture of left tibia would have taken treatment for those
injuries certainly. Also having sustained such injuries, the
appellant could have taken assistance of another person to
attend his daily needs and necessities at least for a period
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16100
HC-KAR
of 3 months. Also the appellant could have incurred not less
than Rs.5,000/- for his food, extra-nourishment and
conveyance charges till recovery. Having considered all
these facts, this Court is of the view that globally, the
amount that is granted by the compensation, if enhanced
by Rs.40,000/-, the total amount which the appellant will
receive will be justifiable. 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, Ranebennur, through orders in
MVC 1 of 2014 dated 14.01.2016 is
enhanced by Rs.40,000/-
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of deposit.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16100
HC-KAR
(iv) The apportionment made and the
liability fixed among the respondents
applies to enhanced sum as well.
(v) Respondents are directed to deposit
their shares before the concerned
tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(vi) On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the entire
amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
