[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Hanamant vs Basavaraj on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
MFA No. 103251 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
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. 103251 OF 2014
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100096 OF 2015
IN MFA NO.103251/2014 :
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVARAJ S/O RAMAGONDA PAYAGON,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: HIPPARAGI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI HANAMANT S/O RAMACHANDRA BHAJANTRI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
R/AT: HIPPARAGI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
Date: 2026.04.06 11:17:29
+0100
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
23.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.856/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIM TRIBUNAL NO.VI JAMKHANDI, AWARDING THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,09,600/- WITH THE INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT AND COSTS WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF ORDER & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
MFA No. 103251 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN MFA.CROB NO.100096/2015 :
BETWEEN:
SRI HANAMANT
S/O RAMACHANDRA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIPPARAGI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BASAVARAJ S/O RAMAGONDA PAYAGON,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIPPARAGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.103251/2014 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC. 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.09.2013, PASSED IN
MVC NO.856/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-VI, JAMKHANDI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
MFA No. 103251 of 2014
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 23.09.2013
passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT no.VI,
Jamkhandi, ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC no.856/2009, appeal
and cross objection are filed.
2. Sri Siddappa S.Sajjan, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by owner of vehicle challenging finding
of Tribunal on negligence as well as on quantum. It was
submitted that at 01.30 p.m. on 23.01.2008, when claimant
was travelling on tractor no.KA-23/1249 with two trailers
bearing CH-03 and CH-04, towards Saundatti, near
Sangappanakolla, driver of tractor drove it in rash and
negligent manner and took sudden right turn. Due to which
tractor dashed against a Bus causing injuries to claimant's leg.
Though he was admitted at Government Hospital at Saundatti,
and later at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and also took treatment at
Ganga Surgical Hospital, Gokak, he did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore he filed claim
petition against owner of tractor trailer under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short).
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
3. On contest, when claim petition was opposed on all
grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and Dr.Naveen Malagi as PWs1 and
2 and got mark Exs.P1 to P19. Owner examined himself as
RW1 and got marked Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to negligence of driver of tractor and as tractor trailers
were not insured, owner was liable to pay compensation
assessed at Rs.5,09,600/- with 6% interest. Aggrieved, present
appeal was filed by owner in which claimant has filed cross
objection for enhancement.
5. It was submitted that even as per police
prosecution records relied upon by claimant, charge sheet was
filed against driver of driver of tractor wherein it was
mentioned that claimant was travelling on trailer with his feet
protruding outside trailer and which had contributed to accident
in question and also aggravated disability.
6. Even on quantum, it was submitted, assessment of
functional disability at 40% when doctor had assessed 80% to
limb, was excessive and called for moderation.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
7. On other hand, Sri Prashant S.Kadadevar, learned
counsel while opposing owner's appeal, submitted that claimant
had filed cross objection for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted that as on date of accident i.e., 23.01.2008,
claimant was 32 years of age, working as coolie and earning
Rs.14,000/- per month. However, Tribunal considered his
monthly income on lower side on Rs.4,500/-. It was submitted
there was no dispute that accidental injuries had led to
amputation of claimant's right leg above knee. Consequently,
claimant had lost his entire earning capacity. Therefore,
assessment of functional disability at 40% was on lower side. It
was submitted, even compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded
towards 'pain and suffering' and Rs.5,000/- towards 'loss of
amenities' were on lower side and sought enhancement. He
prayed for adding future prospects to monthly income for
calculating 'loss of future income'. On said ground sought for
allowing cross objection.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
9. From above, points that would arise for
consideration are:
(i) Whether Tribunal was justified in not assigning
any contributory negligence against claimant?
And
(ii) Whether assessment of compensation calls for
modification".
10. Point no.(i) : To establish actionable negligence
against owner of tractor, claimant relied upon police
prosecution records. There is no dispute that charge sheet
arraigns driver of tractor for causing accident due to rash and
negligent driving. For purposes of claim petition under MV Act,
reliance on police investigation records to establish actionable
negligence would suffice. Though it is contented by referring to
contents of Ex.P6-charge sheet that legs of claimant were
protruding outside tractor trailer, if driver of tractor trailer
noticed same, he ought to have stopped tractor. Further there
is no complaint filed by driver of tractor against claimant for
negligence. Therefore, owner cannot be permitted to take
advantage of his own mistake. In light of said reasoning, point
no.(i) is answered in affirmative.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
11. Point no.(ii) : Though impugned award is also
challenged on quantum, it is seen there is no dispute that at
time of accident claimant was 32 years old, coolie and stated to
be earning Rs.14,000/-, sustained amputation of right leg
above knee. Amputation of lower limb above knee, even under
provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 would result in
loss of earning capacity in excess of 40%. Therefore challenge
by owner on quantum would not sustain. On other hand,
considering occupation and compensation awarded towards
artificial limb, though physical disability may be to a higher
extent than assessed but with use of artificial limb, same is
likely to reduce. Therefore assessment of functional disability at
40% is retained. Though claimant stated that he was earning
Rs.14,000/- per month as agricultural coolie, same is not
substantiated. In absence, Tribunal assessed monthly income
at Rs.4,500/- notionally, which is slightly higher than notional
income adopted for purposes of settlement of claim petition
before Lok-Adalat. Same is sustained.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
12. However in view of ratio laid down in Erudhaya
Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.1
(Erudhaya Priya), there would be substance in contention
that future prospects are required to be added even in personal
injury claims.
13. Considering age of claimant at 32 years and he
being self employed, addition of future prospects would be at
40% and multiplier applicable would be '16'. Thus
compensation towards future loss of income would be:
40% of Rs.4,500/- (+ 40%) X 12 X 16 = Rs.4,83,840/-.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Rajkumar v.
Ajaykumar and Anr.2, has held in case of amputation,
claimant would be entitled for compensation towards 'pain and
suffering' as well as towards 'loss of amenities" substantially.
Award of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively towards
same, by Tribunal would be grossly inadequate. Therefore, sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards 'pain and suffering' and
another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of
2020 SCC OnLine SC 601
2011 ACJ 1
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
amenities' and 'loss of expectation in life' together.
Compensation of Rs.4,000/- towards transportation,
Rs.25,000/- towards food, nourishment and other attendant
charges, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses,
Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of income during laid-up period' and
Rs.50,000/- towards artificial limb are not challenged and
sustained. Thus total compensation would be paid be
Rs.8,12,840/- Point no.(ii) is answered accordingly.
Consequently following;
ORDER
i. MFA no.103251/2014 is dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for payment.
iii. MFA Crob. no.100096/2015 is allowed in part.
iv. Judgment and award dated 23.09.2013
passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and
MACT no.VI, Jamkhandi, in MVC no.856/2009
stands modified.
v. Claimant is held entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.8,12,840/- as against
Rs.5,09,600/- awarded by Tribunal, with
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4965
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100096 of 2015
HC-KAR
interest at 6% per annum from date of
petition till deposit.
vi. Appellant is directed to deposit enhanced
compensation before Tribunal within 8 weeks.
vii. On deposit, same is ordered to be kept in
fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a
period of 5 years.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9
