Karnataka High Court
Durgappa S/O. Maruti Nadakinnamani vs Maruti S/O. Fakirappa Kidadal on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
MFA No. 23938 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23938 OF 2013 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
DURGAPPA S/O. MARUTI NADAKINNAMANI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O. BOCHABAL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI MARUTI S/O. FAKIRAPPA KIDADAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHANDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE, APMC YARD SAUNDATTI,
TAL: SAUNDATTI,
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
(INSURER OF HERO HONDA CD DAWN
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
MOTOR CYCLE NO.KA 24/J-3613)
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C. NO.1090/2010
DATED 27.12.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT., SAUNDATTI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE
HEADS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
MFA No. 23938 of 2013
HC-KAR
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 Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Rajashekhar S.Arani, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is
passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Saundatti (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for
brevity) in M.V.C. No.1090/2010 dated 27.12.2011. This is
a claimant's appeal.
3. Undisputedly, the appellant sustained one
grievous injury and four simple injuries in a road traffic
accident that occurred in the year 2009. The Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering
for the grievous injury sustained, Rs.20,000/- towards pain
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
HC-KAR
and suffering for the four simple injuries at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- each, Rs.9,282/- towards medical expenses and
Rs.2,000/- towards food, conveyance and other incidental
charges. A sum of Rs.61,282/- rounded to Rs.61,300/- is
awarded in total. The version of the appellant is that the
said sum is grossly low.
4. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that PW-2 assessed the disability in
respect of right upper limb as 10% but the same was not
considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel also states that
the Tribunal failed to award any compensation either under
the head 'loss of future earnings' or under the head 'loss of
income during laid up period'. Learned counsel also states
that the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards
loss of amenities in life. Learned counsel also contends that
the compensation granted under all heads is on lower side.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Rajashekhar S.Arani,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
HC-KAR
appellant is not suffering with any kind of permanent
physical disability as such and therefore the compensation
that is granted by the Tribunal is proper.
6. As rightly put forth by learned counsel for the
appellant, as per the evidence of PW-2, the disability in
respect of right upper limb is 10%. Also it is clear that the
appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 5 days.
Undoubtedly, the appellant could not have attended his
normal pursuits at least for a period of 3 months in the light
of the grievous injury sustained to the right upper limb.
Therefore, the appellant is certainly entitled to
compensation towards loss of earnings during laid up
period. Also this Court is of the view that the compensation
granted towards food, conveyance, extra nourishment and
attendant charges that is Rs.2,000/- is on lower side. The
disability as assessed by PW-2 in respect of right upper limb
is 10%. Therefore, the disability in respect of whole body
comes around 3% to 3.5%. Therefore, the appellant will
face certain extent of disability to attend his duties even
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
HC-KAR
subsequent to recovery due to the injury sustained. Thus,
considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the
sum awarded as compensation is required to be enhanced
by Rs.50,000/-.
7. Thus, 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,
Saundatti through orders in M.V.C.
No.1090/2010 dated 27.12.2011 is
enhanced by Rs.50,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of deposit except
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15078
HC-KAR
for the period of delay of 439 days as per
the order dated 16.07.2014.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
(v) On such deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
RH
CT-MCK
