Fakirappa S/O Neelappa Pujar vs M/S Vsl Mining Company Pvt. Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 8987 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Fakirappa S/O Neelappa Pujar vs M/S Vsl Mining Company Pvt. Ltd on 9 October, 2025

                                                     -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:13688
                                                            MFA No. 102520 of 2022


                           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. 102520/2022 (MV-I)
                          BETWEEN:
                          FAKIRAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA PUJAR,
                          AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. HALLIKERI,
                          TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-58115.
                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                          (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

                          AND:
                          1.   M/S. VSL MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,
                               NO.12, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
                               NTI LAYOUT, DOLLORS COLONY,
                               BMV EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE,
                               BANGALORE-560094.

                          2.  THE BRANCH MANAGER,
GIRIJA A.                     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BYAHATTI                      V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE, DESHAPANDE NAGAR,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
                              HUBLI-580029.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
                                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
DHARWAD
                          (BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                              R1-DISPENSED WITH)

                               THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
                          VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM
                          THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT
                          GADAG AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
                          LEARNED JUDGE IN M.V.C. NO.251/2013 DATED 01.02.2020
                          AND ENHANCE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM
                          PETITION; COST OF THE APPEAL AND ETC.
                                -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:13688
                                           MFA No. 102520 of 2022


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.Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel for the

appellant, as well as Sri.Subhash J. Baddi, learned

counsel for respondent No.2. At 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,

Gadag, through orders in MVC No.251/2013 dated

01.02.2020, the claimant therein has filed the present

appeal seeking enhancement.

3. While learned counsel for the appellant states that

compensation granted is on lower side, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the

compensation granted is highly justifiable.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13688

HC-KAR

4. From all the evidence produced, the appellant

succeeded in establishing that he sustained fracture of

the left superior and inferior pubic bone and he took

treatment conservatively.

5. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, held that

the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss

of income during laid up period, Rs.800/- towards

medical expenditure, Rs.58,000/- towards loss of

future earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards diet and

conveyance and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of

amenities. The Tribunal granted a sum of

Rs.1,33,800/- in total.

6. The Tribunal took the disability in respect of the whole

body as 6%, which needs no interference. However,

as per the version of the appellant, by working as a

coolie, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But the

Tribunal took notional income as Rs.5,000/- per

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13688

HC-KAR

month. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-

only towards loss of income during the laid up period.

However, this Court is of the view that the appellant

would not have attended to his normal pursuits at

least for a period of three months and, therefore, the

sum awarded as compensation towards loss of income

during the laid up period is on lower side.

7. The Tribunal failed to award any compensation

towards attendant charges. Also, the sum awarded as

compensation towards diet and conveyance, that is

Rs.5,000/-, is on lower side.

8. Considering the totality of evidence produced, this

Court is of the view that the compensation which the

appellant receives will be justifiable in case the

compensation granted is enhanced globally by

Rs.50,000/-, which includes the interest also.

9. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following

order: