Karnataka High Court
Sri.Channappa S/O Basappa Gouri vs The Managing Director And on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13983
MFA No. 102780 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102780 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O. BASAPPA GOURI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O. LAXMESHWAR, NOW AT
VAKKALGERI ONI, GADAG,
TQ & DIST: GADAG-582101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
SELF INSURANCE FUND, NWKRTC
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC,
GIRIJA A.
GADAG-582101.
BYAHATTI ...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE
HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG
AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
LEARNED JUDGE IN M.V.C.NO.330/2013 DATED 11TH MARCH
2019 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PARYED FOR;
COST OF THE APPEAL AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13983
MFA No. 102780 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
1. Heard Sri.G. S. Hulmani, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Madanmohan M. Khannur,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as
compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gadag, through orders in MVC No.330/2013 dated
11.03.2019 the claimant therein preferred the present
appeal.
3. Making his submission with regard to the merits of the
matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant sustained three grievous injuries in a
road traffic accident. He took extensive treatment for
those injuries. As per Exhibit P10 - disability
certificate, he is left with 48 to 50% disability. The
appellant spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13983
HC-KAR
treatment. But without considering the evidence
produced, the Tribunal granted very meager sum as
compensation and therefore the present appeal is
filed. Learned counsel ultimately seeks for
enhancement in compensation.
4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for
the respondents on the other hand is that, though the
appellant produced Exhibit P10 - disability certificate,
he failed to establish the genuineness of the said
certificate. Even the disability certificate does not
reveal to which part of the body the said disability
exists. Learned counsel further submits that the
appellant even failed to establish his occupation and
earnings by the date of accident. However learned
counsel finally states that there may be marginal
enhancement in the light of the submission that is
made by learned counsel for the appellant.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13983
HC-KAR
5. Though the appellant contended that, as an
agriculturist, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month,
no substantive proof is produced to that effect.
Likewise, appellant failed to establish even the aspect
of disability in clear terms. However, based on the
evidence produced, the appellant succeeded in
establishing that he had sustained a fracture over
1/3rd of radius with fracture of the lower end of ulna
left and fracture of the left clavicle which are grievous
in nature. Also it is brought on record in clear terms
that he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of
one week.
6. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- only under
the head 'pain and suffering' and Rs.6,000/- only
towards 'loss of earnings during treatment period'. The
amount thus awarded is on lower side, as rightly
contended by learned counsel for the appellant.
Further, as rightly contended, the sum granted that is
Rs.6,000/- towards traveling and other expenses is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13983
HC-KAR
also on lower side. No amount is awarded as
compensation towards loss of amenities.
7. Thus, considering these factors, this Court is of the
view that the amount awarded as compensation is
required to be enhanced by Rs.70,000/- globally,
which includes interest. Therefore, the appeal is
disposed of with the following order:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadag, through orders
in MVC No.330/2013 dated 11.03.2019, is
enhanced by Rs.70,000/-.
iii. Respondents are directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13983
HC-KAR
iv. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
