Karnataka High Court
Prashant S/O Ramanna @ Ramachandra ... vs The Divisional Controller on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13649
MFA No. 20673 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20673 OF 2013 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
PRASHANT
S/O. RAMANNA @ RAMACHANDRA HALAPET,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
PRESENTLY NIL, R/O. JAIN PETH,
KULKARNI GALLI, BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
GIRIJA A. ...RESPONDENT
BYAHATTI (BY SRI. S.S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(3) OF MOTOR
DHARWAD
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL ON RECORDS MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MACT-II AT
BAGALKOT IN M.V.C. NO.275/2011 DATED 17.01.2013 AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13649
MFA No. 20673 of 2013
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Sri.D.V.Pattar who represents Sri.Anand R.Kolli
learned counsel on record for the appellant. No
representation on respondent's side on call.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bagalkot
in MVC No.275/2011 dated 17.01.2013.
3. On the ground that he sustained grievous injuries
in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2011 and
became permanently disabled the petitioner filed a petition
claiming compensation of ₹13,00,000/- in total. The tribunal
through the impugned order awarded a sum of ₹1,45,400/-
as compensation. Projecting that he is entitled for a higher
sum, present appeal is filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13649
HC-KAR
4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the accident occurred in the year
2011 and for the relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is taking the notional income as ₹6,000/-
per month for settlement of claims. But the tribunal took
the notional income of the appellant as ₹3,000/- per month
only which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also states that
the appellant sustained two grievous injuries in the road
traffic accident and as per the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3,
disability in respect of whole body is 25% but the tribunal
took the disability in respect of whole body as 8%. Learned
counsel further submits that the compensation that is
granted by the tribunal under all other heads is also on
lower side.
5. The tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of ₹12,000/- under the head pain and
suffering, ₹82,000/- towards medical expenses, ₹46,000/-
towards loss of future income and ₹5,400/- towards loss of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13649
HC-KAR
amenities, nutrition, diet and attending charges. The
tribunal granted a sum of ₹1,45,400/- in total.
6. The version of the appellant as per his pleadings
itself is that he was earning ₹4,500/- per month by the date
of the accident. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to take
the notional income of the appellant as ₹6,000/- per month
as pleaded now. It is not in dispute that the appellant
sustained a grievous injury at L4 and L5 level and another
grievous injury at L1 and L2 level. Through the evidence of
PW-2 and PW-3 the appellant succeeded in establishing the
nature of treatment he took, the aspect of disability and the
expenditure he incurred. The appellant also succeeded in
establishing that he took treatment as inpatient for a period
of 27 days. Therefore, considering the evidence produced,
this Court is of the view that the compensation that is
granted by the tribunal requires enhancement. Having
considered the totality of the evidence produced, this Court
is of the view that the compensation granted can be
enhanced globally by ₹50,000/- so that the amount which
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13649
HC-KAR
the appellant receives as compensation as a whole 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
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bagalkot
through orders in MVC No.275/2011 dated
17.01.2013 is enhanced by ₹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.
(iv) Respondent is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13649
HC-KAR
(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
RH
CT-MCK
