Karnataka High Court
Anil @ Anilkumar vs Venkatesha on 9 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13669
MFA No. 100985 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100985/2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ANIL @ ANIL KUMAR S/O. GOVINDAPPA,
23 YEARS, R/O: HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANKIT DESAI FOR
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. VENKATESHA S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA,
31 YEARS, DRIVER-CUM-OWNER OF
AUTO BEARING REG.NO.KA-16/B-4360,
R/O: POST OFFICE ROAD, MOLAKALMUR TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
GIRIJA A.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
BYAHATTI THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
PARVATHI NAGAR, OPP. BALA HOTEL,
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
UPSTAIR BALLARI.
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.04.2014 IN
M.V.C. NO.158/2013 PASSED BY THE MEMBER, MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL-II BALLARI, BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION REASONABLY AND ADEQUATELY, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13669
MFA No. 100985 of 2015
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)
1. Heard Sri.Ankit Desai, who represents
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel on
record for the appellant, as well as Sri.Suresh S.
Gundi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. At the
request of both the learned counsel, the matter is
taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as
compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
II, Bellary, through orders in MVC No.158/2013 dated
16.04.2014, the claimant is before this Court by filing
an appeal.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant
contends that, as against the claim for Rs.10,00,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13669
HC-KAR
the Tribunal granted a meagre sum of Rs.1,74,018/-
as compensation. Learned counsel submits that the
appellant was working as coolie as on the date of the
accident. He sustained grievous injuries, which
resulted in shortening of the right lower limb by 2
centimetres. PW2 examined the appellant and
assessed that there is disability of 38% in respect of
the whole body. However, the Tribunal took the
disability as 12.66% in respect of the whole body and
awarded a meagre sum as compensation under the
head 'Loss of future earnings'. Learned counsel
submits the compensation that is granted by the
Tribunal under other heads is also on the lower side.
4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for
respondent No.2, on the other hand, is that the
Tribunal, considering the evidence produced, awarded
justifiable sum as compensation, and in case this
Court intends, there may be marginal enhancement
only.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13669
HC-KAR
5. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, awarded a
sum of Rs.1,23,055/- towards loss of future earnings,
Rs.5,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/-
towards conveyance and other incidental charges,
Rs.2,000/- towards nourishment and Rs.36,363/-
towards medical expenses. The Tribunal granted a
sum of Rs.1,74,018/- in total.
6. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded
in establishing that he sustained an abrasion over the
right knee, which is simple in nature and fracture of
the mid-shaft of the right femur, which is grievous in
nature. The appellant also established that he
underwent open reduction and internal fixation for the
grievous injury sustained.
7. The evidence of PW2 is that the fracture is malunited
with implant in situ. Considering the evidence
produced, the Tribunal opined that the disability in
respect of whole body can be taken as 12.66%, which
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13669
HC-KAR
needs no interference. As per the version of the
appellant, he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as
agricultural coolie by the date of accident. The
accident occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, for the
relevant period, earning of Rs.6,000/- per month as
an agricultural coolie is justifiable. Therefore, taking
income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month and
without disturbing other parameters, the
compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive
towards loss of future earnings is Rs.1,64,073.6
rounded to Rs.1,64,074/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12 X 18 X
12.66%).
8. The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss
of income during laid up period. Having considered the
nature of injury sustained and the treatment taken
which includes a surgery, this Court is of the view that
the appellant could not have attended his normal
pursuits at least for a period of 4 months. Thus, loss of
earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.24,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13669
HC-KAR
(Rs.6,000/- X 4). Also this Court is of the view that
the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards food,
extra nourishment, attendant and conveyance
charges. Therefore, the total amount which the
appellant is entitled to receive as compensation is as
under:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards pain and suffering 25,000.00
Towards food, extra nourishment 15,000.00
attendant and conveyance charges
Towards Medical expenses 36,363.00
Towards Loss future earnings 1,64,074.00
Towards loss of income during laid up 24,000.00
period
TOTAL 2,64,437.00
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant
is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,64,437/- as compensation.
Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13669
HC-KAR
ii) The compensation that is granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bellary,
through orders in MVC No.158/2013 dated
16.04.2014 is enhanced from Rs.1,74,018/-
to Rs.2,64,437/-.
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 8 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
gab/EM
CT-MCK
