Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Gouse vs Sharana Basappa And Anr on 10 October, 2025

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                 -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB
                                                        MFA No. 201228 of 2018


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 10TH 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. 201228 OF 2018 (MV-I)


                      BETWEEN:


                      MOHAMMED GOUSE
                      S/O BASHU MIYA,
                      AGE: 27 YEARS,
                      OCC: MECHANIC NOW NILL,
                      R/O H.NO.9-7-30/1,
                      AYYA BOWDI MADDIPET,
                      RAICHUR-584 101.
Digitally signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
                                                                   ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


                      (BY SRI. SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE)


                      AND:


                      1.    SHARANA BASAPPA
                            S/O LATE SHIVARAYA MUNOLLI,
                            AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER/OWNER,
                            R/O H.NO.1-11-53/32,
                            GOURI SHANKAR NILAYA,
                            SRI. RAM NAGAR COLONY, RAICHUR -584 101.
                               -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB
                                     MFA No. 201228 of 2018


HC-KAR




2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     H.D.F.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     HM. GENEVA HOUSE 1ST FLOOR,
     CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
     BANGALORE-500 001.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S

173(1)   OF     MVC   ACT,    PRAYING     TO    ENHANCE      THE

COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY

SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

17.02.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IIND                ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT      JUDGE   AND    MACT    AT      RAICHUR    IN   MVC

NO.364/2016.


      THIS     APPEAL,      COMING      ON      FOR     HEARING

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 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:5947-DB
                                      MFA No. 201228 of 2018


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

dated 17.02.2018 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge & Addl. MACT at Raichur in MVC No.364/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that, on 02.08.2016 at about 11.05 am

near RTO office, Raichur, on Raichur-Mantralaya road, the

driver of car bearing registration No.MA-12/CD-9419 drove

the same from Railway station, Raichur towards

Mantralaya, took U turn near RTO circle thereby dashed to

the bike coming from opposite direction and caused the

accident. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166

of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

spent huge amount towards medical expenses. 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, the respondent Nos.1 and

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 himself was examined as

PW-1, Sashikanta Prusty was examined as PW-2 and

Dr.Harishmurthy was examined as PW-3 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. On behalf of the

respondents, got marked exhibited document namely

Ex.R1.

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

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

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

sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the

claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,84,000/-

along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present

appeal has been filed.

7. Sri. Sharanagouda V. Patil, the learned counsel

for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was

doing mechanic work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month,

but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely

as Rs.9,000/- p.m which is on the lower side. He further

contends that, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in

case of Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others,

AIR 2020 SCC 4424. The claimant is also entitled for

future prospectus.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

b) Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as

PW-3. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the

claimant has suffered disability of 85% to the whole body

due to amputation of right lower limb. But the Tribunal

has taken the whole body disability at 43%, which is on

the lower side.

c) Thirdly, he contends that the right above knee has

been amputated. The claimant required artificial leg and it

costs more than Rs.2,00,000/-. But the Tribunal has

awarded only Rs.50,000/-. Hence, he sought for

enhancement of compensation.

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

sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for

a period of 15 days. Even after discharge from the

hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular

work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and has

to suffer the disability throughout his life. Considering the

same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and

other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence,

he sought for allowing the appeal.

8. On the other hand, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi,

learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company

has raised following counter contentions:

a) Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was

earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not produced any

documents to establish his income. In the absence of proof

of income, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly

income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- p.m.

b) Secondly, even though doctor has deposed that

claimant has suffered 85% disability to the whole body,

due to the amputation of right lower limb, he has not

assessed the disability to the particular limb before

assessing the whole body. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly

considered the whole body disability as 43% is just and

reasonable.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant and considering the evidence of doctor age and

avocation of the claimant, the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain

and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are just and

reasonable.

d) Lastly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-

3 and he has deposed regarding the cost of artificial leg.

Tribunal has justified in granting Rs.50,000/- for an

artificial leg is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

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

sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on

02.08.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the car

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

bearing registration No.MA-12-CD-9419. Due to the above

accident, the claimant has suffered the following injuries: -

(i) Supracondylar fracture of right Femur

(ii) Multiple abrasions

(iii) Lacerations

11. The claimant claims that he was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. He has not produced any

documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the absence

of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed.

Considering the age of the claimant and he was working as

mechanic, the Tribunal has justified in considering that

monthly income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- p.m.

12. The claimant has examined as PW-3

Dr.Harishmurthy, Orthopedic Surgeon, Raichur has

deposed that the claimant has suffered disability of 85%

to the whole body due to amputation of right lower limb.

Going through the medical records and evidence of the

doctor, it is very clear that right lower limb has been

amputated above knee below the hip. Considering the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

schedule in Employees Compensation Act, 1923 serial

No.17 for Amputation below hip with stump not exceeding

12.70 Cms. in length measured from tip of great

trenchanter is 80%. Therefore, taking into consideration

the evidence of the doctor and medical records, we are of

the opinion that whole body disability has to be assessed

80%.

13. The claimant is aged about 24 years at the

time of the accident. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.

Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income of

the claimant has to be considered future prospects. The

multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the

claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,77,280/-

on account of 'loss of future income' has been reassessed

as follows:

Rs.12,600/- x 12 x 18 x 80/100 = Rs.21,77,280/-

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

14. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

the above said injuries and was treated as inpatient for a

period of 15 days in the hospital. He has to suffer with the

disability stated by the doctor throughout his life.

Considering the evidence of doctor and injuries suffered by

the claimant, we inclined to enhance the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and

sufferings' from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and under the

head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

15. In respect of artificial leg is concerned,

considering that evidence of doctor, the disability suffered

by the claimant is 85% and there is an amputation or right

lower limb, we are of the opinion that compensation

awarded by the Tribunal for artificial leg has to be

enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.

16. Considering the nature of injuries, the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads

is just and reasonable.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5947-DB

HC-KAR

17. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

compensation:

Compensation As awarded by As awarded by under different the Tribunal this Court Heads (Rs.) (Rs.) Transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Food, attendant Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- & nourishment charge Medical expenses Rs.1,22,923/- Rs.1,22,923/- Artificial leg Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Pain and Rs.50,000/- Rs.60,000/- suffering Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Rs.50,000/- Loss of future Rs.8,35,920/- Rs.21,77,280/- earnings Rs.10,83,843/- Rs.25,30,203/-

     Total
     Enhancement                    Rs.14,46,360/-

18. In the result, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.25,30,203/- as against Rs.10,83,843/- awarded

by the Tribunal and enhanced compensation of