Karnataka High Court
Shahanavaj Shanoor S/O Shahansha vs Shainshan S/O Garibsha Makandar on 29 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
MFA No. 100293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 100828 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100293 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100828 OF 2022
IN M.F.A.NO.100293/2022:
BETWEEN:
SHRI BHIMASHEN
S/O. VAJEER GOUDAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE,
NOW NIL,
R/O. KADOLI-590001,
TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
AND:
1. SHRI SHAINSHAH
S/O. GARIBSHA MAKANDAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. PETH GALLI,
KADOL-590001,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
MFA No. 100293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 100828 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
RAMADEV GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY COURT OF
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND MEMBER OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C.
NO.2384/2018 DATED 06.03.2020, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.100828/2022:
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHAHANAVAJ @ SHANOOR
S/O. SHAHANSHA MAKANDAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: CLEANER,
AGRICULTURE COOLIE,
NOW NIL,
R/O. HONAGA-590001,
TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
MFA No. 100293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 100828 of 2022
HC-KAR
1. SHRI SHAINSHAH
S/O. GARIBSHA MAKANDAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. PETH GALLI,
KADOL-590001,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
RAMADEV GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY COURT OF
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND MEMBER OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C.
NO.2385/2018 DATED 06.03.2020, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
MFA No. 100293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 100828 of 2022
HC-KAR
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
The orders rendered by the Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, dated 06.03.2020 are under
challenge.
2. MFA 100293 of 2022 is filed challenging the
order that is rendered in MVC 2384 of 2018 and MFA
100828 of 2022 is filed challenging the order that is
rendered in MVC 2385 of 2018.
3. Undisputedly both the appellants sustained
grievous injuries during the course of same accident that
occurred on 21.11.2017.
4. Heard Sri Hanamant R. Latur, learned counsel for
the appellants in both the appeals as well as Sri V.P.Vadavi,
learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 in both the
appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
HC-KAR
5. By all the evidence produced, the appellant in
MFA No.100293 of 2022 established that he sustained
fracture of left clavicle bone. The tribunal having considered
the nature of injury sustained, the treatment taken and the
disability with which he is left with, awarded a sum of
Rs.2,20,703/- as compensation. The version of the
appellant Bhimashen is that as an agricultural coolie he was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However the tribunal took
the national income as Rs.8,000/- per month. Learned
counsel for the appellant states that though the disability as
spoken by PW4 is 25% in respect of left shoulder, the
tribunal took the functional disability in respect of whole
body as 5% unjustifiably and awarded very meagre sum as
compensation towards 'loss of future earnings'. Learned
counsel further submits that the appellant Bhimashen took
treatment as inpatient for a period of 9 days. But the
tribunal failed to award any justifiable sum as compensation
towards 'food, extra nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges'. Learned counsel states that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
HC-KAR
compensation awarded under all heads is on lower side.
Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in
compensation.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends
that basing on the submission that is made by learned
counsel for the appellant, the compensation granted may be
enhanced, but globally.
7. Having considered the nature of injury sustained,
the treatment taken and the disability with which the
appellant is left with, this Court is of the view that the
compensation that is granted by the tribunal under the
heads 'loss of future earnings', 'miscellaneous expenses'
and 'loss of income during laid up period' is on lower side.
This Court is of the view that globally the compensation
granted to the appellant is entitled to be enhanced by
Rs.1,00,000/- including interest.
8. Now coming to the claim in the other case i.e., in
MFA 100828 of 2022, the appellant herein sustained
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
HC-KAR
fracture of left frontal bone, fracture of left orbital roof bone
and fracture of right frontal bone. As per the evidence of
PW4, the disability due to the fractures sustained in total is
30%. However, the tribunal took the disability in respect of
whole body as 5%. Having considered the nature of injuries
sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant
Shahanavaj would have taken bed rest at least for a period
of 4 to 5 months. But the tribunal granted a sum of
Rs.24,000/- only towards 'loss of income during laid up
period'. Also the tribunal failed to award justifiable sum as
compensation towards the 'food, extra nourishment,
attendant and conveyance charges'. Also the compensation
granted towards 'pain and suffering' and 'loss of amenities'
is on lower side. Further this Court is of the view that the
disability in respect of whole body assessed by the tribunal
is on lower side. Considering all these aspects, this Court is
of the view that globally the appellant Shahanavaj is
entitled for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in addition to the sum
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
HC-KAR
that is awarded by the tribunal including interest. Therefore
both the appeals are disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Belagavi, through orders in MVC 2384 of
2018 dated 06.03.2020 is enhanced by
Rs.1,00,000/-.
(iii) The compensation that is granted by the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Belagavi, through orders in MVC 2385 of
2018 is enhanced by Rs.1,25,000/-.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum in both the appeals within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14567
HC-KAR
(v) On deposit, both the appellants are
permitted to withdraw the deposited
amount.
(vi) The findings of the tribunal on all other
aspects holds good.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
