[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sadik Dadapeer Hosmani vs Shatyappa Narayan Patil on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5110
MFA No. 100296 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100296 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SADIK DADAPEER HOSMANI,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE AT VEGETABLE MARKET,
NOW NIL,
R/O: AZAD NAGAR, BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI YASH NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SHATYAPPA NARAYAN PATIL,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: SHOP NO.21, BHAJI MARKET,
FORT, BELGAUM.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
CHANDRASHEKAR
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
II FLOOR, MUDALAGI BUILDING, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.08 10:24:49
+0100
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
14.08.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1145/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT BELGAUM,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5110
MFA No. 100296 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 14.08.2013 passed
by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi ('Tribunal',
for short) in MVC no.1145/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Yash Nadakarni, advocate appearing for Sri
Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for appellant submitted that
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It
was submitted that at 8:30 p.m. on 27.05.2005 when claimant
was proceeding on motorcycle bearing chassis no.99L19C-17736,
Engine no.99L17-M-18068 as a pillion rider near Zad Shahapur,
driver of Truck no.KA-22/1716 drove it in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In
accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite taking
treatment at KLE Hospital, Belagavi, he did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity. Claiming compensation, he
filed claim petition against owner and insurer of Truck under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5110
HC-KAR
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and two doctors as PWs1 to 3 and
got marked Exhibits P1 to P16. Insurer did not lead oral
evidence, but got marked copies of insurance policy and driving
license as Exs.R1 and R2 with consent.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver
and claimant was entitled for compensation from insurer at
₹8,09,000/- with interest 6% per annum.
5. It was submitted, in accident, claimant sustained
fracture at 1/3rd of right tibia, right lateral tibia, fracture of
medial condoyle of right femur and orbit of right zygomatic arch,
assessed by PWs.2 and 3 who have resulted in disability of 90%
to upper limb, 30% to lower limb and 40% to right lower limb. It
was submitted, in his deposition, PW2-Dr.Raviraj B.Ghorpade
had stated about claimant suffering from motor neuropathy,
which was a condition wherein claimant would lose sensation in
his upper limbs.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5110
HC-KAR
6. Under above circumstances, Tribunal ought to have
assessed his loss of earning capacity at 100%. It was submitted,
when claimant had sustained more than five fractures, award of
₹60,000/- only towards pain and suffering and ₹40,000/-
towards loss of amenities would be gravely inadequate and
sought enhancement. It was submitted, even compensation of
₹30,000/- awarded towards loss of income during laid up period,
when claimant was hospitalized for two months was inadequate
and sought enhancement. On above ground sought
enhancement.
7. On other hand, Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned
counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that
Tribunal had assessed compensation rather liberally under each
head and by taking higher monthly income leaving no scope for
enhancement and even if there were any, excess award would
offset same.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
9. From above, point that arises for consideration is:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5110
HC-KAR
'Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought?'
10. Same is answered in 'negative' for following reasons.
11. There is no dispute about occurrence of accident
involving insured vehicle and claimant sustaining grievous
injuries therein. There is also no dispute about fact that claimant
was entitled for compensation from insurer. While passing
impugned award, Tribunal noted pleading of claimant that as on
date of accident, he was 22 years of age working as coolie and
earning ₹9,000/- per month, but failed to establish same with a
specific material.
12. It is seen, to establish loss of earning capacity,
claimant examined Dr.Raviraj B.Ghorpade as PW2 who was a
neurosurgeon, assessed upper limb disability at 90% and lower
limb at 40% while PW3- Dr.Prakash C.Wali, Orthopedic doctor
assessed 40% disability to lower limb. But, perusal of treatment
records namely Exs.P7 to P8 as well as disability certificates and
other treatment records, it is seen that claimant was treated for
fractures by Orthopedic surgeons only and not for any
neurological issues. Therefore, contention about claimant
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5110
HC-KAR
suffering from neurological issues and consequent disability on
that account would not be without proper basis. In either case
for fractures of right tibia and femur, assessment of functional
disability at 55% by Tribunal cannot under any circumstances be
considered to be grossly inadequate or contrary to record.
Assessment appears rather liberal.
13. Even insofar as monthly income, in absence of
claimant establishing monthly income, Tribunal ought to have
considered notional income at ₹3,500/- for year 2005. However,
it has considered ₹5,000/- which is also sufficiently liberal in
favour of claimant to offset any scope for enhancement either
towards pain and suffering or towards loss of income during laid
up period or other heads for that matter.
14. On overall consideration award appears more than
just and proper and as such, dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14
