Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Shri.Datta S/O. Shankar Kadam on 14 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816
MFA No. 100125 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100125 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DULY
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI DATTA, S/O. SHANKAR KADAM,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. J-75, HINDAL COLONY, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. SHAKUNTALA, W/O. MOHAN GIRAMALLANNAVAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
GIRIJA A. R/O. PLOT NO.29,BASAV COLONY,
BYAHATTI
INDAL ROAD, BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI (OWNER OF INNOVA CAR BEARING NO.KA-22/P-9580)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
(BY SRI. YASH FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV.FOR R1;
R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.419/2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,27,500/-
WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
ITS PAYMENT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816
MFA No. 100125 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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. Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Yash who represents
Sri.Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel on record for
respondent No.1. At request of both the learned
counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and
disposal.
2. This appeal is the outcome of award that is passed by
the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Belagavi in MVC No.419/2018 dated 31.10.2018.
3. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
claimant', for the sake of convenience of discussion)
filed a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.40,00,000/- on the ground that he sustained
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816
HC-KAR
occurred in the year 2017 and that those injuries
resulted in total permanent disability. The Tribunal
subjecting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, Exhibits P1 to
P15 and Exhibits R1 to scrutiny, held that the claimant
is entitled to a sum of Rs.13,27,500/- as
compensation. Aggrieved by the award thus passed
the present appeal is filed by the appellant, upon
whom the liability is fastened.
4. Arguing the matter, Sri.R. R. Mane, learned counsel
for the appellant, contends that the appellant is
continuing his job still and he receives salary through
the said job. The salary he receives is more than the
amount which he was getting as on the date of
accident. Learned counsel submits that when the
claimant fails to produce any evidence to show that he
lost his job, he is not entitled for any amount towards
loss of future earnings. Learned counsel also states
that the claimant suppressed the fact of continuation
of his job even after the date of accident and thereby
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816
HC-KAR
misled the Court. Stating that when the claimant
receives salary and can eke out his livelihood through
the said salary even after the date of accident, he is
not entitled for any amount under the head loss of
future earnings, but without considering that, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- towards loss
of future earnings, learned counsel relies upon the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case
between B.N. Jeevan Prakash and Shabeer Ahmad
Shariff and others1.
5. The submission that is made by learned counsel who
represents the claimant, on the other hand, is that the
claimant was working in a private company and was
earning Rs.18,000/- per month by the date of
accident. However, the claimant could not produce any
proof in respect of his occupation and earnings. But
the claimant produced Exhibit P11 - Diploma
IV (2007) ACC 797 (DB)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816
HC-KAR
Certificate, which reveals that he possesses a Diploma
in Automobile Engineering. Therefore, taking into
account the absence of proof with regard to the
occupation and earnings, the Tribunal held that the
income of the claimant is required to be considered as
Rs.15,000/- per month and accordingly, having taken
the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month,
awarded justifiable amount under the head 'loss of
future earnings' and therefore the appeal is not
maintainable.
6. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced substantive
proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on
the date of accident. The Tribunal at para 24 of the
impugned order observed that the claimant has
produced a pay slip to show that he was working at
AEQUS, Belgaum and that he was earning Rs.17,382/-
per month. Also observing that the said document
was not got marked and the claimant did not examine
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816
HC-KAR
his employer, the Tribunal took the notional income as
Rs.15,000/- per month.
7. The version of the appellant is that, the claimant
continued his job even after the date of accident and
he is getting his salary. On a query posed by the
Court, whether such a plea was taken in the written
statement filed by the appellant, learned counsel for
the appellant submits that all the contentions in the
claim petition were denied, and thus it amounts to
denial of the occupation and earnings as pleaded by
the claimant.
8. The specific plea of the appellant is that, the claimant
continued his job and he is earning through the said
job even after the date of accident. Such being the
case of the appellant, the burden is on the appellant to
show that the claimant is a job holder and is receiving
salary. No evidence whatsoever is produced in that
regard by the appellant. Without appreciating the plea
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816
HC-KAR
of the claimant that he was doing private job and was
earning Rs.18,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the
notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, basing on
the educational qualification of the claimant, that is, a
Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal
did not err in taking the notional income of the
claimant as Rs.15,000/- per month and awarding a
sum of Rs.7,65,000/- under the 'head loss of future
earnings'. Hence, this Court ultimately holds that the
appeal lacks merits.
10. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed without
costs.
11. Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
gab
