[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Afazal vs Sharanappa And Anr on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
MFA No. 201421 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 201734 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201421 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201734 OF 2022 (MV-I)
IN MFA No.201421/2022:
BETWEEN:
AFAZAL S/O MOULANA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O. H.NO.121/1, MAIN ROAD, YELHERI,
TQ. AND DIST. YADAGIRI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SHARANAPPA S/O MALLANNA MUDHOL,
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TATA GOODS LPT
COURT OF BEARING REG. NO.MH-04/H-3423,
KARNATAKA 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:455
MFA No. 201421 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 201734 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.03.2022 IN MVC
NO.225/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MEMBER MACT-II,
YADGIR MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION.
IN MFA NO.201734/2022:
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. AFZAL S/O MOULANA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC:COOLIE (NOW NIL)
R/O H.NO.121/1, YELHERI,
TQ AND DIST.YADAGIRI- 585 321.
2. SHRANAPPA 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- 5852 24.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
MFA No. 201421 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 201734 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/03/2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.225/2020 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.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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.225/2020, 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.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
HC-KAR
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
such, the claimant has filed MVC No.225/2020 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.5,31,840/- 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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
HC-KAR
the Tribunal as to the liability, the Insurance Company has
filed MFA No.201734/2022 and the claimant has filed MFA
No.201421/2022 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
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
HC-KAR
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, in respect of the
argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company as to the fact that the vehicle in
question is a commercial vehicle/transport vehicle,
however, following 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, I am of
the view that as the unladen weight of the Vehicle in
question is less than 7,500 kg and therefore, the said
vehicle has to be considered as a light motor vehicle.
Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
HC-KAR
9. Insofar as award of compensation is concerned,
the claimant was examined as PW.1 and the treating
doctor was examined as PW.6. Taking into consideration
the injuries sustained by the claimant as per Ex.P7, I am
of the view that the disability to an extent of 30% has to
be taken to meet the ends of justice. 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 Sarla Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121, to the case on hand as 14, I am of the view that
the claimant is entitled for compensation towards
loss of earning capacity is Rs.6,93,000/-
(Rs.13,750x12x14x30%). Taking into consideration the
grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, the award of
compensation is reassessed as follows:
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
HC-KAR
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.50,000/-
Loss of future of earnings Rs.6,93,000/-
Towards diet and attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.39,040/-
Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.9,43,290/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.5,31,840/-
Enhancement Rs.4,11,450/-
Thus, the clamant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,11,450/- 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.201734/2022 is hereby
dismissed.
II. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant in
MFA No.201421/2022 is hereby allowed in part.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:455
HC-KAR
III. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,11,450/- 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
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.: 0
CT:PK
