Karnataka High Court
Mahadevappa vs Manohar And Ors on 9 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
MFA No. 201459 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201459 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA,
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. UPPARAWADI STREET, SINDHANUR,
TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR 1. MANOHAR,
Location: HIGH DRIVER OF AUTO NO.KA-37/A-1222
COURT OF R/O. DANAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
KARNATAKA DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
2. B. RAMESH S/O. B. MANAPPA
OWNER OF AUTO NO.KA-37/A-1222,
R/O. WARD NO.1, BANGARA STREET,
NEAR THAYAMMA TEMPLE, KAMPLI VILLAGE,
TQ. HOSPET,
DIST. BELLARY-583132.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
MFA No. 201459 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. THE MANAGER/DULY INSTITUTED ATTORNEY OF
CHOLA MANDALAM,
M.S. GENERAL INS. COMPANY LTD.,
II FLOOR, DAIR HOUSE 2, NSC BOSE ROAD,
CHENNAI-600001.
HAVING ITS BRANCH REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGER OF CHOLAMANDALAM
BELLARY BRANCH OFFICE,
BELLARY-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV., FOR R3;
R2-V/O. DATED 19.03.2025 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH;
R1-V/O. DATED 29.01.2025 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.05.2018
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
SINDHANUR, IN MVC NO.44/2014 (OLD NO.28/2013), IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
MFA No. 201459 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the arguments of both sides.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and
award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Sindhanur, [for short 'Tribunal'] in MVC
No.44 of 2014 [Old M.V.C. No.28/2013].
3. The facts of the case are that on 18.05.2012,
when the injured/claimed was proceeding in a tractor-
trailer bearing No.KA-36/TB-65 and KA-36/T-3194 at
midnight near APMC Karatagi Village, respondent No.1
came in an auto bearing No.KA-37/K-1222 from opposite
direction with passengers in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the body portion of the trailer, where the petitioner
was sitting, as a result of which he sustained crush injury
to his right forearm. For which, he was treated as
inpatient in the hospital for 15 days, wherein he
undergone surgery on his right forearm and amputation
was done. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
HC-KAR
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.17,53,000/-,
contending that he was aged 55 years at the time of
accident and by working as Hamali he was earning
Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal considering the entire
materials available on record, had awarded a sum of
Rs.2,53,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the
date of petition till realization and directed respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation within 3 months
from the date of the said judgment and exonerated
respondent No.3 -Insurance Company from its liability.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal,
the injured-claimant has preferred this appeal.
5. It is contended by the claimants that it is a case
of amputation of right forearm. In support of the same,
he contended that he has got examined the Doctor as
PW2, who assessed the disability at 50% to the whole
body, but the Tribunal has wrongly considered the same at
25%. He also contended that the income was also taken
Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. It is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
HC-KAR
further stated that initial burden is on the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation and thereafter it is at
liberty to recover the same from the owner of the
offending vehicle.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
respondent No.3 - Insurance Company that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
and needs no interference. He further submitted that as
respondent No.2 had remained ex-parte before the
Tribunal, the pay and recover principle would not arise in
this matter, hence, respondent No.3 - Insurance Company
is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
7. Admittedly, it is the case of the amputation of
right forearm. Though, the claimant states that he was
earning Rs.9,000/- per month, he has not produced any
document to prove the same. As he met with the accident
on 18.05.2012, as per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, this Court
reassess the income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/- per
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
HC-KAR
month. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 55
years and appropriate multiplier applicable to his age
group is '11'.
8. As per Ex.P11 - Medical Certificate issued by
PW2 - Doctor, the claimant has sustained 50% disability,
but the Tribunal without considering the same, has taken
only 25% disability, hence, the said finding is incorrect.
Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to take
50% disability as per Ex.P11. Accordingly, the claimant is
entitled for loss of future earning as under:
Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 11 x 50% = Rs.4,29,000/-
9. The claimant was admitted in the hospital for
15 days, underwent surgeries and amputation was done.
Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering; and
Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities. However, the
compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
HC-KAR
medical expenses, transportation, extra nourishment and
attendant charges needs no interference.
10. In all, the total compensation comes to
Rs.6,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realisation.
11. The award of compensation passed by the
Tribunal is modified as under:
Heads Award by the Award by this
Tribunal in Court in Rs.
Rs.
1. Pain and suffering 20,000/- 1,50,000/-
2. Loss of amenities 20,000/- 50,000/-
3. Loss of future 1,98,000/- 4,29,000/-
earning due to disability
4. Medical expenses, 15,000/- 15,000/-
transportation, extra
nourishment and
attendant charges
Total 2,53,000/- 6,44,000/-
There will be enhancement of Rs.3,91,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
HC-KAR
12. No doubt, the Tribunal has rightly observed that
there is no valid Driving Licence and there is violation of
the terms and conditions of the Policy and hence,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation to the claimant.
13. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Pappu Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba1, the
respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to
pay the compensation to the claimant at the first
instance and thereafter recover the same from
respondent No.2.
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The claimant is entitled for the total
compensation of Rs.6,44,000/- with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization as against Rs.2,53,000/-.
(2018) 3 SCC 208
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5922
HC-KAR
(iii) Respondent No.3 - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid
compensation amount within one month from
the date of this judgment and is at liberty to
recover the same from respondent No.2..
(iv) On such deposit, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount along
with interest accrued on it.
Sd/-
(P. SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
SBS
CT:RJ
