Karnataka High Court
Somalingappa S/O. Basappa Nandyal vs Sureshchannabasappa Shiggavi on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225
MFA No. 101432 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101432 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SOMALINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA NANDYAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GANGAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SURESH CHANNABASAPPA SHIGGAVI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O. GUNDENAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: BYADAGI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GIRIJA A. ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
BYAHATTI
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND
A.M.A.C.T. RANEBENNUR IN M.V.C.NO.127/2004 DATED 15-10-
2009 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225
MFA No. 101432 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Sri.Nagaraj J. Appannavar, who appears before
this Court physically and represents Sri.Laxman T.
Mantagani, learned counsel on record for the
appellant. Also heard Ms. Aruna Deshpande, learned
counsel for respondent No.2, who appears through
Video Conference.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by
the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ranebennur, in MVC No.127/2004 dated 15.10.2009.
This is a claimant's appeal.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant sustained two grievous
injuries in a road traffic accident apart from three
other simple injuries. The injuries resulted in
permanent physical disability. But without appreciating
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225
HC-KAR
the evidence produced, the Tribunal granted
compensation of Rs.45,000/- in total and aggrieved by
the sum thus awarded, the present appeal is filed.
Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in
compensation.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that this
Court taking the notional income into consideration for
the relevant period and appropriate disability in
respect of whole body, may pass necessary orders.
5. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded
in establishing that he sustained fracture of 3rd and 4th
metatarsal bones of right foot and fracture of right
knee joint, which are grievous in nature, apart from
three other simple injuries. The appellant tried to
project that the disability in respect of whole body is
55%. He placed much reliance on Exhibit P.64 -
disability certificate. However, considering the
contents of the said certificate and the injuries
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225
HC-KAR
sustained, this Court is of the view that the disability
in respect of whole body can be taken as 10%.
6. The appellant failed to produce any proof with regard
to his occupation and earnings as on the date of
accident. Hence, as sought for by learned counsel for
respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that the
notional income for the relevant period is required to
be taken. The High Court Legal Services Committee,
Dharwad is taking the notional income for the relevant
period, that is for the year 2003 for settlement of
claims as Rs.3,250/-. Therefore, the notional income
of the appellant is taken as Rs.3,250/- per month. The
age of the appellant as borne by medical record as on
the date of accident is 38 years. Therefore, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, is 15.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225
HC-KAR
7. Thus, on taking the notional income of the appellant
as Rs.3,250/- per month, the appropriate multiplier to
be applied as 15 and the disability in respect of whole
body as 10%, the compensation which the appellant is
entitled to receive towards 'loss of future earnings' is
Rs.58,500/- (Rs.3,250 × 12 × 15 × 10%).
8. In the light of the injuries sustained, the appellant
might have taken bed rest at least for a period of four
months. Therefore, 'loss of earnings during laid-up
period' comes to Rs.13,000/- (Rs.3,250 × 4).
9. Thus, considering the evidence produced and the
submissions made by both the learned counsel, this
Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to
compensation under following heads:
Head of Compensation Amount
(Rs.)
Pain and suffering 30,000.00
Food, extra nourishment, 5,000.00
conveyance and attendant
charges
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225
HC-KAR
Loss of future earnings 58,500.00
Medical Expenses 10,000.00
Loss of income during laid-up 13,000.00
period
Loss of amenities in life 10,000.00
Total 1,26,500.00
10. Thus, the above discussion makes it clear that the
appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,26,500/- as
compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of
with the following order:
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 No.127/2004 dated
15.10.2009 is enhanced from Rs.45,000/- to
Rs.1,26,500/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225
HC-KAR
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
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, appellant is permitted to withdraw
the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
