Karnataka High Court
Sri. Pompapathy S/O Late B Erappa vs Sri. P. Hanumantha Reddy S/O. Late P ... on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14677
MFA No. 103472 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103472 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. POMPAPATHY
S/O. LATE B. ERAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: RMP DOCTOR,
R/O. CAR STREET, RAMPUR,
TQ: MOLAKALMURU,
DIST: CHITRADURGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
Digitally signed by GIRIJA
A. BYAHATTI AND:
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.11.03 12:22:05
+0530 1. SRI. P. HANUMANTHA REDDY,
S/O. LATE P. VEERA REDDY,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE MARUTHI
SWIFT CAR BEARING NO.KA-34/M-5635,
R/O. 10TH WARD,
BEHIND BRAHMAIAH TEMPLE,
KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14677
MFA No. 103472 of 2017
HC-KAR
2. SMT. P. ANANTHAMMA
W/O. LATE P. VEERA REDDY,
AGE: 74 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF MARUTHI SWIFT
CAR BEARING NO.KA-34/M-5635,
R/O. YERRANGALI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: BALLARI.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GSR TOWER,
2ND FLOOR, PARVATHI NAGAR,
BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 04.02.2017 IN M.V.C. NO.1224/2013 PASSED BY THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI MAY KINDLY
BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED
IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED
FOR WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14677
MFA No. 103472 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Heard Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel
for the appellant as well as Sri N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel
for respondent No.3.
2. The appellant, who admittedly sustained injuries in
a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2013, filed a
petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in total. The
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari, which dealt with
the case as MVC 1224 of 2013, rendered orders on
04.02.2017 holding that the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.4,37,000/- as compensation. Stating that he is entitled to a
higher sum, the present appeal is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the
appellant is a doctor by profession and he was earning huge
sum as on the date of accident. Without considering the
occupation and earnings of the appellant, the tribunal took the
notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded very
meagre sum as compensation towards 'loss of future
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14677
HC-KAR
earnings'. Learned counsel further states that the tribunal
failed to award any compensation towards 'loss of earnings
during laid up period' and for the diet, extra-nourishment,
attendant and conveyance charges. Learned counsel also
contends that the amount that is awarded as compensation
towards 'loss of amenities' is on lower side. Learned counsel
thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent
No.3 submits that the appellant does not hold any degree to
claim himself to be a doctor. Learned counsel submits that no
evidence was produced by the appellant with regard to his
occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. Learned
counsel also states that the tribunal considering the entire
evidence produced, awarded justifiable sum as compensation.
However, in the light of the submission that is made by
learned counsel for the appellant, there may be marginal
enhancement.
5. As per the version of the appellant, he is an RMP,
which means a Registered Medical Practitioner. A Registered
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14677
HC-KAR
Medical Practitioner is entirely different from a doctor by
profession. Though the version of the appellant is that he was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month as on the date of accident, no
proof to that effect is produced. The tribunal taking the
notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month, awarded a sum of
Rs.1,92,000/- towards 'loss of future earnings'. The sum thus
awarded is justifiable.
6. However as rightly contented by learned counsel
for the appellant no sum is awarded towards 'loss of earnings
during laid up period'. Equally the tribunal failed to award any
compensation for the expenditure which the appellant would
have incurred for 'food, extra-nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges'. By all the evidence that is brought on
record, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he
sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. He also
established that he took treatment as inpatient for a period of
14 days. Thus considering all these aspects, this Court is of
the view that globally the compensation granted is required to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14677
HC-KAR
be enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore the appeal is
disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari
through orders in MVC 1224 of 2013 dated
04.02.2017 is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(v) On deposit the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
EM
CT-MCK
