[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sukhachandra S/O Babu Tandel vs Kamalakar Budhwant Mesta on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
MFA No. 103388 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103388 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI SUKHACHANDRA
S/O BABU TANDEL, AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE CUM HAMAL AT PRESENT NIL,
R/O: TONKA, KASARKOD, HONNAVAR TALUK,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANKIT R. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI KAMALAKAR BUDHWANT MESTA,
REGD. OWNER OF TRUCK
BEARING NO.KA-30/A-1114,
R/O: TULASINAGAR, HONNAVARA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.07 05:45:05
+0100
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MOSQUE ROAD, UDUPI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RS ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED DATED 20.07.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.
AT HONNAVAR, IN MVC NO.71/2010 & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
MFA No. 103388 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.07.2013 passed
by Additional MACT, Honnavar, ('Tribunal' for short), in MVC
no.71/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Ankit R. Desai, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted, at 11.30 p.m., on 18.04.2009
when claimant was traveling in Lorry no.KA.30/A-1114 belonging
to respondent no.1 as cleaner, near Shajee Garage, Karwar,
driver was driving it in rash and negligent manner due to which
he lost control and vehicle turtled down. Due to said accident,
claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at
District Hospital Karwar and Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, did not
recover fully and lost earning capacity. Claiming compensation,
he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, ('MV Act' for short), against owner and insurer of Lorry.
3. On appearance, claim petition was opposed on all
grounds, based on which, issues were framed and evidence
recorded. Claimant along with Dr.Arjun Shetty, deposed as
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
HC-KAR
PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.120. Respondents
examined 2 witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R.1
and R2.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry by its driver, vehicle
was covered with insurance policy and claimant was entitled for
compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
jointly from owner/insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum, appeal
was filed.
5. It was submitted, as on date of accident claimant
was 34 years of age, working as cleaner in Lorry and earning
Rs.4,500/- per month. Claimant sustained severe injuries to C4,
C5 of his neck. He was unable to move his hands/legs and lost
control over bladder and bowels. Exs.P.119-Disabiloity certificate
issued by Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, recorded claimant suffering
from traumatic quadriparesis leading to disability of 60-70%.
Same was also spoken about by PW.2. Despite same, Tribunal
considered only 25% as loss of earning capacity and awarded
inadequate compensation. It was submitted Tribunal also erred
in not adding future prospects to monthly income. Even
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
HC-KAR
compensation awarded towards 'pain and suffering', 'medical
expenses', 'incidental expenses', 'loss of income during laid-up
period' were on lower side and sought enhancement. It was
submitted Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation
towards 'loss of amenities'. On said grounds, prayed for allowing
appeal.
6. On other hand, Sri RS Arani, learned counsel for
insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted Tribunal had rightly
considered 1/3rd of limb disability as whole body disability and
assessed compensation accordingly. Even compensation awarded
under other heads, was just and proper. Therefore, there was no
scope for enhancement and sought dismissal of appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused judgment, award and
record.
8. From above, point arising for consideration is:
Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
9. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident involving insured vehicle, claimant sustaining
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
HC-KAR
permanent physical disability and consequent loss of earning
capacity and being entitled for compensation from insurer.
10. Though claimant stated that he was earning
Rs.4,500/- per month working as cleaner, he did not
substantiate same. Therefore, it is required to be assessed
notionally. Notional income for year 2009 is Rs.5,000/-, same
has to be considered. Claimant sustained injuries to C4, C5 of his
neck and suffered from quadriparesis assessed to have caused
permanent physical disability of 60-70% as per Exs.P.119-
Disability Certificate. Apart from same, he also lost control over
his bladder and bowels. PW-2 - deposed that claimant was
unable to perform even daily routine activities and required
assistance. In view of same, it has to be held that claimant lost
entire earning capacity.
11. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation
Ltd.1, claimant would be entitled for addition of future prospects
even in personal injury case. Since, claimant was 36 years of age
and self employed, future prospects at 40% has to be added and
2020 SCC OnLine SC 601
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
HC-KAR
multiplier applicable would be '15'. Thus, compensation towards
'future loss of income' would be:
Rs.5,000/- + 40% X 12 X 15 = Rs.12,60,000/-
12. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'pain
and suffering' which under circumstances, appears just and
proper. Even Rs.62,000/- awarded as 'medical expenses',
Rs.15,000/- towards 'conveyance, food and other incidental
expenses' and Rs.18,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid-
up period' appears adequate leaving no scope for enhancement.
13. However, Tribunal had not awarded any
compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. Considering his young
age and disability sustained, it is found fit to award
Rs.1,50,000/- under said head. Thus total compensation would
be Rs.16,05,000/-. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4982
HC-KAR
(ii) Judgment and award dated 20.07.2013
passed by Additional MACT, Honnavar in MVC
no.71/2010, is modified.
(iii) Appellant/claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.16,05,000/- as against
Rs.3,30,000/- awarded by Tribunal with
interest at 6% per annum excluding period of
427 days being delay in filing appeal.
(iv) Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced
compensation with interest before Tribunal
within six (6) weeks.
(v) On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release a
sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of claimant
and remaining amount is ordered to be kept
in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank
earning highest interest with provision for
online transfer into account of claimant with
also provision for release in case any amount
is needed for medical exigencies or such
other similar purpose.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM:
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12
