[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Husenbee Begum vs Sharanappa And Anr on 5 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
MFA No. 201785 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 201797 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201785 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201797 OF 2022 (MV-I)
IN MFA No.201785/2022:
BETWEEN:
HUSENBEE BEGUM W/O CHANDPASHA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O. H.NO.1/17, 1ST BLOCK, RAMSAMUDRA,
TQ. AND DIST.YADAGIRI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE 1. SHARANAPPA S/O MALLANNA MUDHOL,
Location: HIGH AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TATA GOODS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA LPT BEARING REG. NO.MH-04/H-3423,
R/O. WARD NO.2, NARSINGOPET, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADAGIRI-585 224.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
SUPER MARKET ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
MFA No. 201785 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 201797 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.224/2020 BY THE LEARNED MEMBER MACT-II AT YADGIR,
MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION.
IN MFA NO.201797/2022:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO, LTD.,
OPP. MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
SUPER MARKET ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HUSENBEE BEGUM W/O CHANDPASHA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O H.NO.1/17, RAMSAMUDRA,
TQ. AND DIST.YADAGIRI- 585 321.
2. SHARANAPPA S/O MALLANNA MUDHOL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TATA GOODS
LPT, BEARING REGISTRATION NO.MH-04/H-3423
R/O WARD NO.2, NARSINGOPET,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI-585 224.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/03/2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.224/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT-II AT YADGIR AND PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDERS/RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
MFA No. 201785 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 201797 of 2022
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
These appeals are arising out of the judgment and
award dated 04.03.2022 in MVC No.224/2020, on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II at Yadgiri
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties in the
appeals shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that, on
19.06.2020, the claimant was travelling in a cruiser
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-33/A-6982 from
Waginagera to Ramasamudra and at that time, the Tata
Goods LPT bearing registration No.MH-04/H-3423 came
from opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to the cruiser. On account of the
same, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and as
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
HC-KAR
such, the claimant has filed MVC No.224/2020 seeking
compensation.
4. The claim petition was contested by the
respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. The evidence has
been adduced by the parties to establish their case. The
Tribunal after considering the material on record, by its
judgment and award dated 04.03.2022, allowed the claim
petition in part holding that, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,46,580/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award made by
the Tribunal as to the liability, the Insurance Company has
filed MFA No.201785/2022 and the claimant has filed MFA
No.201797/2022 seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
6. Sri Sudarshan M., the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company contended that, as
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
HC-KAR
the claimant was travelling in cruiser vehicle, which is a
transport vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to
have fixed the liability on the offending vehicle. Therefore,
sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued by
the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that, the
award of compensation by the Tribunal is on the higher
side, which required to be interfered with in this appeal.
7. Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, the learned counsel
appearing for the claimant submitted that, though the
cruiser vehicle in question is a transport vehicle, however,
the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is less than
7,500 kg and therefore, the claimant is entitled for
compensation. It is also argued by the learned counsel for
the claimant that, award of compensation is meager,
which required to be enhanced in the appeal filed by the
claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and in view of
the order dated 22.01.2026 passed in MFA
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
HC-KAR
No.201798/2022, I am of the view that the appeal
preferred by the Insurance Company in MFA
No.201797/2022 does not survive for consideration in
view of the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Aliance General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and
Others reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95.
9. Insofar as award of compensation is concerned,
on careful consideration of award of compensation by the
Tribunal, wherein, the claimant was aged about 60 years
and as per the wound certificate at Ex.P5, the claimant has
underwent surgery. In that view of the matter, the
Tribunal ought to have taken the disability at 15% taking
into consideration the evidence of PW.5. Since the
accident is of the year 2020 and following the guidance
issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,
the income of the claimant has to be taken at Rs.13,750/-
per month. Applying the appropriate multiplier as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
HC-KAR
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, to the case on hand as 7,
I am of the view that the claimant is entitled for
compensation towards loss of earning capacity is
Rs.1,73,250/- (Rs.13,750x12x7x15%). Taking
into consideration the grievous injuries sustained by the
claimant, the award of compensation is reassessed as
follows:
Heads Amount
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Loss of earnings during laid up Rs.41,250/-
period (Rs.13,750x3)
Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/-
Loss of future of earnings Rs.1,73,250/-
Towards diet and attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,06,020/-
Total Rs.4,30,520/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.2,46,580/-
Enhancement Rs.1,83,940/-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
HC-KAR
Thus, the clamant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,83,940/- rounded of to
Rs.1,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
I. The appeal filed the appellant/Insurance
Company in MFA No.201797/2022 is hereby
dismissed.
II. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant in
MFA No.201785/2022 is hereby allowed in part.
III. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
IV. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1089
HC-KAR
within six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
V. The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to
the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
CT:PK
