Karnataka High Court
Smt Shantawwa vs Shri Rudrappa Mallappa Hunashikatti on 15 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921
MFA No. 100034 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100034 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. MALLAPPA HUNASHIKATTI,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE & VEGETABLE VENDING (NOW NILL)
R/O. HOSAMANI CHAWL, BAILHONGAL,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RUDRAPPA MALLAPPA HUNASHIKATTI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. GOKAVI GALLI, BAILHONGAL-591102,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SAMADEVI GALLI BELAGAVI-590001,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL IN M.V.C.NO.1042/2020
DATED 04.09.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921
MFA No. 100034 of 2024
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)
Heard Sri.Hanamant R.Latur, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2. At request of both the learned counsel,
the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
2. Dissatisfied with the sum that is awarded as
compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'
for brevity) through orders in M.V.C. No.1042/2020 dated
04.09.2023, the claimant therein has preferred the present
appeal.
3. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel
for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained
grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and one of those
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921
HC-KAR
injuries is head injury which affected her brain. Learned
counsel states that the Tribunal took the disability in
respect of whole body as 40% and the notional income of
the appellant as Rs.11,750/- and the appellant has no
grievance in that regard. However the compensation that is
granted under the heads pain and suffering, loss of income
during laid up period and loss of amenities is on lower side.
Learned counsel submits that the appellant took treatment
as inpatient for a period of 18 days. Learned counsel
thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.
4. On the other hand, the submission that is made
by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal
without properly appreciating the evidence of PW-2, took
the disability in respect of whole body as 40% as spoken by
him, which is erroneous. Learned counsel states that huge
sum of Rs.8,90,931/- is awarded as compensation and
therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained
grievous injuries during the road traffic accident and the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921
HC-KAR
head injury resulted in disability in respect of whole body to
an extent of 40%. Having considered the fact that the
appellant took treatment as inpatient though conservatively
for 18 days and the nature of injuries sustained, this Court
is of the view that the appellant could not have attended
her normal pursuits at least for a period of 4 months.
However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,500/- only
towards loss of income during laid up period. Also the
compensation granted under the head pain and suffering
that is Rs.40,000/- is required to be enhanced to
Rs.50,000/-. Considering the totality of evidence produced
and the sum that is awarded as compensation under each
head by the Tribunal, this Court is of the view that in case
the compensation granted is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-
globally which includes the interest, the total sum that
would be received by the appellant as compensation can be
termed to be justifiable. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of
with the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13921
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bailhongal through orders in M.V.C.
No.1042/2020 dated 04.09.2023 is
enhanced by Rs.40,000/-.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(iv) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
RH
CT-MCK
