Karnataka High Court

Subhas @ Subhashchandra vs Namadev And Anr on 9 October, 2025

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                              -1-
                                                      NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB
                                                     MFA No. 203642 of 2024


                   HC-KAR




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                           PRESENT

                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                             AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY

                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 203642 OF 2024 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                         SRI SUBHAS @ SUBHASHCHANDRA
                         S/O LAXMAN @ LACHMAPPA CHIKMET,
                         AGE: 40 YEARS,
                         OCC: DRIVER, NOW NIL,
                         R/O: BEERANOOR,
                         TQ: SHAHAPUR,
                         DIST: YADAGIRI.
                                                                ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI SIDRAMREDDY VENKANNA PARADDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR           AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           1.    NAMADEV
KARNATAKA
                         S/O KISHAN RATHOD,
                         AGE: 40 YEARS,
                         OCC: BUSINESS,
                         R/O: MAHANAGAR THANDA,
                         POST: MUGULNAGON,
                         TQ: CHITTAPUR,
                         DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 228.
                         (OWNER OF OFFENDING MAHINDA
                         BOLERO BEARING REG NO.KA-36-M-8909)
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB
                                      MFA No. 203642 of 2024


HC-KAR




2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER,
     HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.,
     COMPANY LIMITED,
     1ST FLOOR VIRUPAKSHAKRUPA,
     OPP: KIMS MAIN GATE, PB ROAD,
     KIMS RD, VIDYA NAGAR HUBBLI - 580 021.
     (INSURER OF OFFENDING MAHINDRA
     BOLERO BEARING REG NO.KA-36-M-8909)
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, 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 AND ENHANCE

THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.30,38,044/-

ALONG    WITH    INTEREST     9%    P.A    BY   MODIFYING   THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

JMFC     AND    ADDL.    MACT-4      AT     SHAHAPUR     DATED

27-02-2024 IN MVC NO.86/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

AND EQUITY AND ETC.


       THIS   MFA,   COMING   ON    FOR ORDERS,      THIS   DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
          AND
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
                                   -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB
                                          MFA No. 203642 of 2024


HC-KAR




                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been

filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and

award dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge

& JMFC and Additional MACT-4, Shahapur in MVC

No.86/2022 and seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that, on 20.01.2022 at about 06.30

p.m., the claimant and his friend Mallikarjun were

proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-33-

Q-2652 on Hattigudur to Devadurg cross main road, near

Maremma temple. The claimant was riding the

motorcycle. At that time, a Mahindra Bolero jeep bearing

registration No.KA-36-M-8909 came from back side in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of

the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166

of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he

spent huge amount towards medical expenses,

conveyance charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the

accident occurred purely on account of the rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not

appear and hence they are placed ex-parte. Respondent

No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written

statement denying the averments made in the claim

petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,

examined himself as PW-1, Mallikarjun was examined as

PW-2 and Dr.Shivabasanagouda patil was examined as

PW-3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to

Ex.P19. On behalf of respondents, inspite of giving

sufficient opportunities, they have not led any evidence.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR

6. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on

account of rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal, upon considering

the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, held

that the claimant is entitled to compensation of

Rs.4,61,956/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the

compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

7. Sri. Sidramreddy Venkanna Paraddy, learned

counsel for the claimant has raised the following

contentions:

a) Firstly, the claimant has examined Dr.

Shivabasanagouda Patil as P.W.3. The doctor in his

evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered

physical disability of 27% to whole body. But the Tribunal

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR

has taken the whole body disability at 5%, which is on the

lower side.

b) Secondly, he has contended that, at the time

of the accident, the claimant was earning Rs.30,000/- per

month as a driver. He has also examined P.W.2-employer

to establish that monthly income of the claimant is

Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has assessed notional income of

the claimant as Rs.14,750/- p.m. which is on the lower

side.

c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as in-patient

for a period of nine days. He has suffered lot of pain

during the treatment and has to suffer the disability

throughout his life. The compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of

amenities' and other incidental expenses are on the lower

side. Hence, he has sought for enhancement of

compensation by allowing the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR

8. On the other hand, Sri. Subash Mallapur,

learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has

raised following counter contentions:

a) Firstly, even though doctor has deposed that

claimant has suffered 27% disability to the whole body,

since fractures are reunited, considering the age,

avocation and injuries suffered by the claimant, Tribunal

has rightly assessed whole body disability as 5%.

b) Secondly, the claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.30,000/- per month as a driver, except examining

P.W.2, he has not produced any documents to establish

his income.

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by

the claimant and considering the age, avocation and

injuries suffered by the claimant, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'pain and

suffering', 'loss of amenities' and other incidental heads

are just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of

the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

10. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

suffered injury in a road traffic accident occurred on

20.01.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

the Mahindra Bolero jeep bearing registration No.KA-36-

M-8909. Due to the above accident, the claimant has

suffered the following injuries: -

"1. Minimally displaced fracture of base st of 1 metacarpal bone with fracture of shaft and base of 3rd metacarpal bone noted.

2. Chip fracture of base of 5th metacarpal bone noted.

3. Minimally displaced fractures of scaphoid bone method."

11. The claimant has examined the doctor as P.W.3

who treated him. The doctor, in his evidence deposed that

the claimant has suffered 27% physical disability to whole

body. Considering the evidence of doctor and injuries

suffered by the claimant, we are of the opinion that whole

body disability can be assessed at 10%.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR

12. Even though claimant has claimed that he was

earning Rs.30,000/- per month as a driver, he has

examined PW.2 to establish that he was paying

Rs.30,000/- per month as a salary. He has not produced

any documents or bank statement to show that he was

getting monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. The accident

occurred in the case on hand is of the year 2022.

Therefore, Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional

income of the claimant at Rs.14,750/- as per the chart

prepared by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Legal Service

Authority. Accordingly, monthly income of the claimant

has been considered. The multiplier applicable to his age

group is 15. Accordingly, loss of future income has been

reassessed as follows: -

Rs.14,750/- x 12 x 15 x 10/100 = Rs.2,65,500/-

13. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

the above said injuries and because of which he was

admitted to hospital as an in-patient for a period of nine

days, he has suffered three fractures. Considering the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR

evidence of doctor, injuries suffered by the claimant, and

medical records, we are of the considered opinion that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head

'pain and suffering' has to be enhanced from Rs.50,000/-

to Rs.70,000/-. Loss of amenities has to be enhanced from

Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under other heads are just and reasonable.

15. The computation of compensation is as under:

Description By Tribunal By this Court

Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.70,000/-

Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/-

Attendants charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-

Special food Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-

Medical expenses Rs.1,24,956/- Rs.1,24,956/-

Loss of future income Rs.1,32,750/- Rs.2,65,500/-


         Loss of income during
                                              Rs.44,250/-      Rs.44,250/-
         treatment period

         Conveyance allowance                 Rs.15,000/-      Rs.15,000/-

         Future medical expenses              Rs.25,000/-      Rs.25,000/-

         Total                          Rs.4,61,956/-       Rs.6,24,706/-

         Enhancement                              Rs.1,62,750/-
                                  - 11 -
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB



HC-KAR

16. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

b) The judgment and award passed by the

Claims Tribunal is modified.

c) The claimant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.6,24,706/- as against

Rs.4,61,956/- awarded by the Tribunal and

enhanced compensation of Rs.1,62,750/-

along with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum.

d) The Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company

is directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation amount along with interest

from the date of filing of the claim petition

till the date of realization, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5936-DB

HC-KAR