[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vivek S/O. Parashuram Bendigeri vs Venkappa S/O. Bhimappa Kaladagi on 9 April, 2026
-1-
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101615 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
VIVEK S/O. PARASHURAM BENDIGERI
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT AND MANUFACTURING,
CHAPPALS AND SHOES,
R/O. NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
TQ: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KALADAGI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TT UNIT BEARING
Digitally signed by NO. KA-29/TA-4107,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH R/O. KAGALAGOMBA VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
BENCH
Date: 2026.04.10
10:19:57 +0530
2. SMT. BASAMMA W/O. BASAPPA KANDGAL
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF A/R CAB BEARING NO.KA.29/9573
R/O. PLOT NO. C-31, SECTOR NO.29,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MELLIGERI COMPLEX, KALADAGI ROAD, BAGALKOT.
POLICY NO.602604/31/6300003748
VALIDITY FROM 30.05.2011 TO 26.08.2012
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.06.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MEMBER M.A.C.T.-II
BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.603/2011 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
17.03.2026, THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
The claimant in MVC No.603/2011 on the file of learned
MACT-II, Bagalkot (in short 'the Tribunal') has maintained this
appeal praying to modify the judgment and award dated
25.06.2013 passed therein and to enhance the compensation
as claimed in the petition.
2. The claimant maintained the petition in MVC
No.603/2011 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the owners of vehicles
i.e., Tractor-Trailors bearing Nos.KA-29-TA-4107/4108/4109
and Autorickshaw Cab bearing No. KA-29-9573 and the insurer
of the Autorickshaw Cab, on the ground that on 02.08.2011 at
12.30 p.m. when he was travelling in Autorickshaw Cab from
Navanagar, near APMC Cross on Navanagar - Bagalkot Road,
he met with an accident due to actionable negligence on the
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
part of the driver of Tractor-Trailers bearing No.KA-29-TA-
4107/4108/4109, which was coming from opposite direction
and sustained grievous injuries.
3. On service of notice, all the three respondents
appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objection to the
claim petition. Thereafter, the Tribunal framed issues in the
case, held enquiry and disposed of the matter on merits of the
case. The Tribunal, based on materials on record, held that the
driver of Tractor-Trailers was responsible for the accident and
allowed the claim petition in part holding that the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.62,000/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization. The Tribunal further directed the owner of the
Tractor-Trailers to satisfy the award.
4. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has directed this
appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Sri P.N.
Hosamane, learned Counsel for Claimant vehemently submitted
that the Tribunal has not properly considered the percentage of
disability suffered by the claimant on account of the accident in
question and his income at the relevant point of time. He
further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
all the materials available on record and failed to award a just
compensation by taking into all relevant factors. As such, he
prayed to allow the appeal and to modify the impugned award
suitably.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1
supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal and submitted
that the claimant has not made out any valid ground to
enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas,
learned Counsels appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
submitted that the claimant has not challenged the order of the
Tribunal holding them not liable to pay compensation to the
claimant and as such, said order needs to be maintained.
6. Having heard the arguments of the counsels
appearing for both sides, the only point that arises for the
consideration of this Court is 'whether the claimant has made
out valid grounds to enhance the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal?'
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.62,000/- to the claimant under the following heads:
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
Sl.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)
1. Towards pain and suffering 40,000.00
2. Towards medical expenses 20,000.00
3. Towards transportation 2,000.00
Total : 62,000.00
8. In his evidence the claimant stated that due to the
accident in question he had suffered fracture of pelvic bone and
femur apart from other simple injuries. The wound certificate
marked at Ex.P5 and the case sheet marked at Ex.P8 goes to
show that the claimant had suffered left pubic body displaced
fracture involving medial wall of acetabulum, left femoral head
posterior dislocation, left ischial tuberocity fracture, diastasis of
symphysis pubic and left sacroiliac joint separation and right
superior and inferior pubic rami fractures. Ex.P8 also indicates
that the claimant has undergone treatment at Patil Medicare
Hospital as an inpatient from 02.08.2011 to 12.08.2011 and
that he was treated with closed reduction for dislocation of left
hip joint. The documents marked at Ex.P7 go to show that the
claimant has spent a total sum of Rs.79,015/-.
9. The impugned judgment goes to show that the
Tribunal proceeded to hold that Ex.P8 does not disclose the
claimant having undergone surgery and the said record does
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
not contain consent letter and nurses notes. In view of the
same, the Tribunal opined that the wound certificate, X-ray
films, CT scan and case sheet cannot be considered. The
Tribunal disbelieved the version of the claimant about he
having suffered dislocation of left hip on the ground that
X-rays, CT scan and case sheet does not disclose about such
injury and proceeded to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the
head of pain and suffering, by presuming that he has suffered
hairine fracture on his left hip and lacerated wound over left
thigh. The Tribunal even did not consider the bills produced at
Ex.P7 on the ground that he has not taken treatment as an
inpatient and he did not undergo any surgery. These
observation/findings of the Tribunal are contrary to contents of
the case sheet produced at Ex.P8 and CT scan report available
in the said record. Thereby, it becomes clear that the Tribunal
has committed grave error in failing to properly appreciate the
materials placed on record and to award just compensation
under the head of pain and sufferings and medical expenses.
Based on the materials available on record, this Court holds
that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/-
under the head of pain and sufferings and Rs.79,015/- under
the medial expenses.
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
10. If we take into consideration nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant, in all probability, he needed about
three months' period for healing up and recovery. According to
the claimant though he was a student at the time of the
accident, he was also earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month
as a maker of chappals, shoes etc. It is true that the claimant
has not placed any documentary evidence to prove his income
at the time of the accident. Even then, basing on the chart of
KSLSA prepared for settlement of the cases before the Lok-
Adalath, this Court opines that it would be proper to presume
income of the claimant notionally as Rs.6,000/- per month. In
that event, the claimant would be entitled to compensation of
Rs.18,000/- (Rs.6000/- x 3) under the head of loss of income
during the period of treatment.
11. The claimant has contended that due to the injury
sustained in the accident, he has suffered physical and mental
disabilities, which have bearing on his future life including
marital life. In this regard, the claimant is relying on the
evidence of PW-2, Dr. Hanamant. In his evidence, PW-2 has
opined that the claimant has got permanent physical disability
of 40% to his left lower limb as he is unable to stand for long
time and walk freely or even sit properly with crossed leg. If we
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
take into consideration the avocation of the claimant, it is to be
held that the alleged permanent physical disability have no
bearing on the future earning capacity of the claimant. In view
of the same, it is held that the claimant has not made out a
valid ground to seek compensation under the head of loss of
future income.
12. The materials on record amply prove that the
claimant had suffered grievous injuries such as displaced
fracture of left pubic and fracture of right superior and inferior
pubic rami. As such, one cannot rule out the chances of the
claimant having physical disabilities or discomforts on account
of such injuries as stated by PW-2. Taking into consideration
the age of the claimant as on the date of the accident and
probable physical discomforts to be suffered during rest of his
life, this Court holds that it is proper to award a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to the claimant under the head of loss of
amenities.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,82,015/- in
place of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the
following heads:
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
Sl.No. Heads Amount (in Rs.)
1. Towards pain and suffering 60,000.00
2. Towards medical expenses 79,015.00
3. Towards Loss of amenities 25,000.00
4. Loss of income during laid up period 18,000.00
Total 1,82,015.00
14. It is the definite case of the claimant that he had
met with the accident due to actionable negligence on the part
of the driver of the Tractor-Trailers bearing No.KA-29-TA-
4107/4108/4109. Thereby, it becomes clear that the owner and
insurer of Autorickshaw Cab bearing No.KA-29-9573 are no
way concerned with payment of compensation as determined in
the case. Accordingly, the Tribunal absolved them from the
liability of paying the compensation to the claimant. Even, the
claimant has no grievance in this regard. As such, it is held the
owner of Tractor-Trailers in question is solely liable to pay the
compensation as determined in the case. Accordingly, the
point for consideration is answered in the 'affirmative'.
15. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
- 10 -
MFA No.101615 OF 2014
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,82,015/- in place of Rs.62,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
(iii) Consequently, the judgment and award dated
25.06.2013 in MVC No.603/2011 passed by the
learned MACT-II, Bagalkot is modified
accordingly.
(iv) Draw modified award accordingly.
(v) The registry is directed to send back the trial
court record to concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
RKM, YAN
CT: CMU
