[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Fakkirappa S/O Khandappa Bajantri vs Managing Director on 15 April, 2026

Author: Ravi V.Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani

                                                          -1-
                                                                     NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499
                                                                  MFA No. 24034 of 2012


                               HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
                                    DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
                                                    BEFORE
                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
                              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24034 OF 2012 (MV)
                               BETWEEN:
                               FAKKIRAPPA,
                               S/O KHANDAPPA BAJANTRI,
                               AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI,
                               R/O: REVADIHAL,
                               POST: TARIHAL, TQ: HUBLI.
                                                                              ...APPELLANT
                               (BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)
                               AND:
                               1.    MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                                     NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.

                               2.    SELF INSURANCE FUND,
                                     NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.

                               3.    PRABHU S/O LAXMAN HALLI,
                                     AGE: MAJOR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN                               OCC: KSRTC BUS DRIVER
KATTIMANI


Digitally signed by
                                     RURAL DEPORT, HUBLI.
                                                                          ...RESPONDENTS
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.17 22:34:29 -
0700


                               (BY SRI IC PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
                               NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

                                    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
                               VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY
                               THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY ENHANCING COMPENSATION IN
                               M.V.C.NO.348/2008 DATED 04.06.2011 PASSED BY THE III
                               ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT
                               HUBLI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
                                 -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499
                                        MFA No. 24034 of 2012


HC-KAR




    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 04.06.2011 passed

by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubli ('Tribunal',

for short) in MVC no.348/2008, this appeal is filed.

2. Brief facts as stated in appeal are that at 9:30 a.m.

on 22.02.2008, claimant - Fakkirappa Khandappa Bajantri was

riding Motorcycle no.KA-25/Y-5997 belonging to Khandappa

Bajantri on Kumbarwada - Kiravatti road with one Manjunath as

pillion rider, when driver of NWKRTC Bus no.KA-25/F-1862 drove

it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle

causing accident. In accident, both Fakkirappa and Khandappa

sustained injuries and despite treatment at Government Hospital,

Dandeli and Lifeline Hospital, Hubballi, did not recover fully and

sustained permanent physical disability and consequent loss of

earning capacity. Therefore, they filed separate claim petitions

against NWKRTC and its driver under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988. Since they arose out of same accident, both

claims were clubbed together.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

3. Despite service of notice, driver did not appear and

was placed ex-parte. Only NWKRTC contested claim petition

opposing it on all grounds including denying negligence of driver

of Bus and alleging contributory negligence by rider of

motorcycle.

4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and

recorded evidence. Claimants along with Dr.Adiveppa Hosangadi

and Gururaj Chabbi deposed as PWs1 to 4 and got marked

Exhibits P1 to P54. Driver deposed as RW1 and got marked

Ex.R1.

5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of Bus by its driver, claimant

had sustained loss of earning capacity and was entitled for

compensation assessed at ₹2,86,220/- with interest at 6% per

annum from NWKRTC. Dissatisfied with quantum, claimant was

in appeal.

6. Grounds urged in memorandum of appeal for

enhancement are claimant sustained crush injury on right leg

and auto amputation of right leg below knee. Despite same,

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

Tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/- towards pain and suffering,

which was on lower side. Even though claimant spent more than

₹2,00,000/- towards treatment, Tribunal awarded only

₹35,000/- towards medical expenses. Though claimant has

stated that he was earning ₹200/- per day by coolie work,

Tribunal considered monthly income only at ₹4,000/- and

assessed inadequate compensation. It was also contended that

PW3 had assessed permanent physical disability of 70% due to

amputation of right leg. However, Tribunal erred in assessing

only 23% as functional disability.

7. Apart from above, Tribunal erred in awarding only

₹2,500/- towards attendant charges though claimant was under

treatment for more than one year and awarded inadequate

compensation grossly at ₹20,000/- towards loss of amenities and

₹5,000/- towards other incidental expenses. Tribunal also erred

in not awarding any compensation towards future medical

expenses and awarding only 6% interest on compensation.

8. Sri IC Patil, learned counsel for respondent -

NWKRTC on other hand opposed appeal. It was submitted that

Tribunal considered every aspect of matter in proper perspective

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

and awarded just compensation leaving no scope for

enhancement. On said ground sought for dismissal.

9. Heard counsel, perused impugned judgment, award

and record.

10. From above, point that would arise for consideration

is:

'Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed?'

11. Same is answered 'partly in affirmative' for following

reasons.

12. At outset, it is seen that claimant a 24-year-old

coolie stated to be earning ₹6,000/- per month, sustained auto

amputation of his right leg below knee, due to which, claimant is

stated to have lost earning capacity in total. Though claimant

stated that he was earning ₹6,000/- per month, same was not

substantiated. In absence, Tribunal would be justified in

assessing it notionally. But, notional income for year 2008 being

₹4,250/-, same has to be considered. Based on wound

certificate, treatment records, X-ray film and scan report, PW3

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

examined claimant and issued Ex.P51 - Disability Certificate

assessing limb disability of 70%. Claimant is stated to be doing

coolie work. Ex.P51 would reveal that amputation is 6 to 7 cm

below knee joint. PW3 has noted Grade-4 weakness of both

quadriceps and hamstrings of right knee. Though there would be

possibility of reduction in disability by use of artificial limb, in

view of reduction/loss of muscle strength, use of artificial limb

may not reduce functional disability substantially.

13. Under above circumstances, application of 1/3rd limb

disability as whole body disability formula by Tribunal would be

erroneous and contrary to material on record. In facts and

circumstances of case, it is found appropriate to consider 50% as

functional disability. Further, as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport

Corporation Ltd., reported in AIR 2020 SC 4284 even in case

of personal injury claim due to substantial disability, claimant

would be entitled for addition of future prospects to monthly

income. Since claimant was 24 years of age, multiplier applicable

would be '18'. Since claimant was 24 years of age and self-

employed, future prospects at 40% has to be added. Thus,

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

compensation towards future loss of income would require

recalculation as follows:

₹4,250 + 40% x 50% x 12 x 18 = ₹6,42,600/-.

14. There is no dispute about claimant sustaining

amputation of right leg below knee. As per decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar and Anr., reported

in 2011 ACJ 1, wherein in case of amputation, Hon'ble Supreme

Court had granted ₹1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering,

compensation awarded by Tribunal would be grossly inadequate

and stands enhanced to ₹1,50,000/- towards pain and

suffering.

15. It is seen that claimant produced medical bills

totalling ₹32,841/-. Tribunal has awarded ₹35,000/- towards

medical expenses, which would be in complete reimbursement of

medical bills. Therefore, award towards medical expenses is

sustained. Though it is alleged by claimant that immediately

after accident on 22.02.2008, he was under treatment for more

than one year during which he could not earn income, it is seen

that Exs.P49 and 50 - discharge summaries would indicate that

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

claimant was admitted to hospital on 22.02.2008 and discharged

on 27.02.2008 i.e. he was inpatient for five days. PW3 in his

deposition stated that he examined claimant on 13.05.2009 and

conducted surgery. Even if PW3 may have operated on claimant,

in absence of specific material, it cannot be held that claimant

was under treatment and away from employment until then.

However, it would be safe to presume that claimant would have

been away from earning for a period of at least six months.

Considering same as period of layoff, claimant is awarded

₹25,500/- towards loss of income during laid up period.

Tribunal awarded ₹2,500/- towards attendant charges, same is

enhanced to ₹10,000/- and ₹10,000/- awarded towards other

incidental expenses. Tribunal has awarded only a sum of

₹20,000/- towards loss of amenities which would be grossly

inadequate, it is found appropriate to enhance it to ₹1,00,000/-

under said head. Tribunal has also not awarded any

compensation towards artificial limb and its periodic repair and

replacement. It is found appropriate to award a sum of

₹1,00,000/- under said head. Thus, claimant is held entitled for

total compensation of ₹10,73,100/-.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

16. Insofar as contention about rate of interest, there is

no justification for enhancing rate of interest and said contention

stands rejected. Consequently, following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

ii. Claimant is held entitled for enhanced

compensation of ₹10,73,100/- as against

₹2,86,220/- awarded by Tribunal. Same shall

carry interest at rate of 6% per annum from date

of claim petition till deposit excluding 363 days

being delay in filing present appeal.

iii. Respondent - NWKRTC is directed to deposit

enhanced compensation before Tribunal within

eight weeks.

iv. On deposit, Tribunal is directed to release sum of

₹2,00,000/- to claimant and keep remaining

amount in deposit in any nationalized bank

earning highest rate of interest with provision for

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:5499

HC-KAR

release of interest on monthly basis and with

provision for withdrawal on application being

filed before Tribunal in case said money is

required for medical or such other exigencies.