[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Padma W/O Kanakappa Walikar vs Asangeppahanamappa Dollin on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5043
MFA No. 102770 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102770 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT.PADMA W/O KANAKAPPA WALIKAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE,
R/O. HIREOATAGERI VILLAGE,
TALUK: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HM DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASANGEPPA HANAMAPPA DOLLIN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.H.NO.73/1, AT AND POST: ASANGI,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MELLIGERI COMPLEX, KALADAGI ROAD, BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (BY SRI GN RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-(VC);
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.07 10:13:53
+0100
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2012 PASSED IN
MVC NO.772/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-II
BAGALKOT AND AWARD JUST AND REASONABLE
COMPENSATION UNDER THE ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5043
MFA No. 102770 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 03.09.2012 passed
by Member, MACT no.II, Bagalkot (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC
no.772/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri HM Dharigond, learned counsel for appellant submits
that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation.
It was submitted that on 26.06.2010 at 07.45 a.m., when
claimant Smt.Padma Walikar along with others were travelling in
Cruiser Vehicle no.KA-29/5420 to go to Mudhol, near first cross,
Sector no.1, Navanagar Bagalkote, driver of Tipper no.KA-
29/6654 drove it in rash and negligent manner and without
giving any signal suddenly turned towards new IB Road and
caused accident. In accident, along with claimant, several
inmates' of cruiser sustained injuries. Despite treatment, they
did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, they filed separate claim petitions against owner and
insurer of Tipper under Section 166 of MV Act. Since all claim
petitions arose out of same accident, they were clubbed together
and common issues were framed. Claimants, eyewitnesses along
with Dr.Hanumant R. Katti deposed as PW1 to PW13 and got
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5043
HC-KAR
marked Exs.P1 to P.54. While insurer examined its official as
RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R6.
3. On consideration, Tribunal held that accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper by its driver,
Tipper was insured and therefore claimants were entitled for
compensation payable by insurer. In MVC no.772/2010, it
awarded compensation of ₹1,15,600/- with interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till deposit. Dissatisfied with
same, present appeal is filed.
4. It was submitted as on date of accident, claimant was
28 years of age, working as agriculturist and earning ₹15,000/-
per month. However, Tribunal erroneously assessed notional
income at ₹3,000/- per month, which was on lower side.
Claimant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula of both legs as
assessed by doctor PW2 to have resulted in 70% disability to left
lower limb and 30% to right lower limb and 45% to whole body.
However, Tribunal considered only 10% functional disability,
which was on lower side. Even award of ₹8,000/- towards pain
and suffering, ₹43,000/- towards medical expenses, ₹3,400/-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5043
HC-KAR
towards loss of amenities and other incidental expenses were on
lower side and sought enhancement.
5. On other hand, Sri GN Raichur, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 opposed appeal. It was submitted that Tribunal
had assessed compensation and awarded same, leaving no scope
for enhancement. It was submitted that disability assessed by
doctor was excessive and therefore, Tribunal moderated same
and there was no scope for modification.
6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
7. From above, since claimant is in appeal for
enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is,
"Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed for?"
8. Though, claimant stated that he was working as
agriculturist and earning ₹15,000/- per month, same was not
substantiated, in absence, Tribunal rightly assessed it notionally.
But notional income for year 2010 being ₹5,500/-, same has to
be considered. There is no dispute about claimant having
sustained fractures of tibia and fibula on both legs. PW12 doctor
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5043
HC-KAR
assessed 70% disability to left lower limb, 30% to right lower
limb and 45% in respect of whole body. Considering said
material, assessment of functional disability at 10% by Tribunal
would not appear justified. It is found appropriate to enhance it
to 20%. Multiplier applicable would be '17'. Thus, compensation
towards future loss of income would be (₹5,500/- X 20% X 12 X
17 =) ₹2,24,400/-. Claimant has sustained fractures of tibia and
fibula of both legs, award of ₹8,000/- towards pain and suffering
would be grossly inadequate and is enhanced to ₹60,000/-.
Claimant has produced medical bills for sum of ₹43,294/-.
Tribunal has awarded ₹43,000/- towards complete
reimbursement. Therefore, same would not call for any
modification. Tribunal has awarded sum of ₹3,400/- towards loss
of amenities and other incidental expenses, which would be
grossly inadequate and inappropriate. Considering nature of
injuries and disability sustained, it is appropriate to award
₹30,000/- towards loss of amenities. Taking note of inpatient
treatment of 12 days, it is found appropriate to award ₹10,000/-
towards incidental expenses. Normally, fractures take about 3
months to heal. Considering same as layoff, claimant is awarded
₹16,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Thus,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5043
HC-KAR
point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative and
claimant held entitled for total enhanced compensation of
₹3,83,900/- as against ₹1,15,600/- awarded by Tribunal.
Consequently, following :
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Claimant is entitled for total enhanced
compensation of ₹3,83,900/- as against
₹1,15,600/- awarded by Tribunal, same shall
carry interest at 6% per annum from date of
petition till date of deposit, excluding period of
694 days being delay in filing appeal.
(iii) Insurer is directed to deposit compensation
amount within 6 weeks.
(iv) On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release
same in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CKK, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13
