[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Babusab vs Nissar Ahammed on 9 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
MFA No. 103784 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 103785 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103784 OF 2015 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103785 OF 2015 (MV)
[[
IN MFA NO. 103784/2015
BETWEEN:
BABUSAB S/O HANIFAGOUDA PATEGOUDAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: HIREHALLI VILLAGE,
BYADAGI TALUK-581106, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT GANGABAYI SK., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NISSAR AHAMMED,
S/O MAINUDDINSAB SAUGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O CHIKKABASUR,
BYADAGI TALUK-581106, DIST: HAVERI.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580021.
Date: 2026.03.10
09:29:56 +0000
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NR KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.02.2011, PASSED IN MVC.NO.227/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AND ITINERARY COURT AT BYADGI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
MFA No. 103784 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 103785 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 103785/2015
BETWEEN:
JAFARSAB
S/O GOUSEMODINSAB PATEGOUDAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREHALLI VILLAGE,
BYADAGI TALUK-581106, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GANGABAYI SK., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NISSAR AHAMMED
S/O MAINUDDINSAB SAUGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CHIKKABASUR,
BYADAGI TALUK-581106,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NR KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
09.02.2011, PASSED IN MVC.NO.226/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND ITINERARY COURT AT BYADGI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
MFA No. 103784 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 103785 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging common judgment and award dated
09.02.2011 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT & I.T. Court, Byadgi1 in MVC no.226/2007 and MVC
no.227/2007, these appeals are filed.
2. Smt. Gungabayi S.K., learned counsel
appearing for Sri MM Khannur, learned counsel for
claimants submitted that these appeals were by claimants
for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that
on 01.05.2004, claimants Babusab and Jafarsab were
travelling in vehicle bearing no.K-29/2426 from Hirehalli
towards Haveri, when driver drove it in rash and negligent
manner, lost control and it toppled down near Purlikatti
tanda. In accident, claimants sustained grievous injuries
and despite treatment at District Hospital, Havari, did not
recover fully and sustained permanent loss of earning
capacity. Therefore, they filed claim petitions under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against owner
and insurer of vehicle.
For short, 'Tribunal'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
3. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear.
He was placed exparte. Insurer opposed claim petition on
all counts. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimants examined themselves and
Dr.U.R. Ullal as PWs1 to PW3 and got marked documents
at Exs.P1 to P14. Insurer got marked copy of Insurance
Policy as Ex.R1 with consent.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured
vehicle by its driver and claimants were entitled for
compensation of Rs.20,000/- each.
5. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in
appeal.
6. It was submitted that as on date of accident
i.e., 01.05.2004, claimant - Babusab was aged 35 years
and earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture. As
per Ex.P10-wound certificate, claimant sustained fractures
of right calcaneus, right tibial spine of tibia bone assessed
by PW3 have resulted in disability to extent of 20%, 15%
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
and 10% i.e. 45% in total. However, merely on ground
that doctor had not treated claimant, Tribunal rejected
evidence and awarded global compensation. Same would
not be justified.
7. It was submitted claimant was entitled for
separate compensation under heads of pain and suffering,
medical expenses, incidental expenses, future loss of
income, loss of income during laid-up period and loss of
amenities. Award of Rs.20,000/- globally by Tribunal
would not be justified and sought for enhancement of
compensation.
8. Likewise, claimant-Jafarsab was 22 years of age
and earning Rs.10,000/- per month from business. As per
Ex.P3 he sustained fracture of left clavicle, L1 vertebra and
iliac bone assessed by PW3 to have resulted in disability of
15% each i.e., total 45% disability. Despite same, merely
on ground that doctor had not treated claimant, Tribunal
rejected evidence and awarded compensation globally.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
Same was not justified and therefore, sought for
enhancement of compensation under each heads.
9. On other hand, Sri NR Kuppelur, learned
counsel for respondent-Insurer opposed appeal. It was
submitted that Tribunal had considered peculiar facts and
circumstances of case and on noticing that fractures
sustained to clavicle, scapula and iliac bone would not
result in disability and awarded global compensation.
Same was justified.
10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
impugned judgment, award and record.
11. From above and since only claimant is in
appeal, common point that would arise for consideration
is:
Whether claimants are entitled for
compensation as prayed?
12. These appeals are by claimants for
enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
13. In MVC no.227/2007: Though claimant
stated that he was 35 years of age earning Rs.10,000/-
per month from agriculture, claimant failed to substantiate
income with specific evidence. In absence, it would be
appropriate for Tribunal to have considered notional
income for year 2004 which is Rs.3,500/-.
14. As per Ex.P10, claimant sustained fracture of
right calcaneus, right tibial spine and right tibia bone.
Though, PW3 Dr.U. R. Ullal issued disability certificate and
deposed that claimant sustained disability to extent of
45%. It is seen that in disability certificate as well as in
examination-in-chief, PW3 stated that fractures were
united. There is no mention about malunion of fractures as
would lead to loss of earning capacity. PW3 has also not
stated in detail about restriction of movement. However,
there is mention of loss of muscle. Moreover, during cross
examination there is suggestion by Insurer that disability
when compared to whole body would reduce. There is also
suggestion that disability would be either 1% to 2% or
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
5%. Considering suggestion and taking note of above facts
and circumstances, it is found appropriate to assess
functional disability at 5%. Claimant was aged 35 years.
Multiplier applicable would be 16.
15. Thus, compensation towards future loss of
income would be Rs.33,600/- (3,500x12x5%x16).
16. Since claimant has sustained three fractures, it
is found appropriate to award sum of Rs.60,000/-
towards pain and suffering. Claimant has not produced
any medical bills and would therefore be not entitled for
same.
17. Normally fractures take about three months to
heal. Considering said period as layoff, claimant is
awarded Rs.10,500/- towards loss of income during laid-
up period.
18. Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- globally is
ordered to be considered as compensation towards loss of
amenities.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
19. Thus, claimant in MVC no.227/2007 (MFA
no.103784/2015) is held entitled for total reassessed
compensation as follows:
Future loss of income 33,600/-
Pain and suffering 60,000/-
Income during laid up period 10,500/-
Loss of amenities 20,000/-
Total Rs.1,24,100/-
20. In MVC 226/2007: Claimant-Jafarsab is
stated to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month from
business. However, reasons stated in MVC no.226/2007
Rs.3,500/- is considered as notional income.
21. Though PW3 has issued Ex.P6 and assessed
disability to extent of 15% each in respect of three
fractures sustained, taking note of fact that fractures are
to left clavicle and iliac bone which normally would not
result in loss of earning capacity. Assessment of disability
by PW3 is held unacceptable. Moreover, in Ex.P6 as well as
in deposition, PW3 has stated that fractures are united.
22. Under above circumstances and taking note of
fact that there is no specific evidence about malunion of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
fractures, it is held that claimant did not suffer any loss of
earning capacity. Therefore, claimant would be entitled for
compensation under other heads. Since claimant has
sustained three fractures, it is found appropriate to award
Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. Claimant has
not produced any medical bills and would therefore be not
entitled for same.
23. Normally fractures take about three months to
heal. Considering said period as layoff, claimant is
awarded Rs.10,500/- towards loss of income during laid-
up period.
24. Since it is opined above that fractures could not
have resulted in disability, claimant would not be entitled
for any compensation towards loss of amenities.
25. Thus, claimant in MVC no.226/2007 (MFA
no.103785/2015) is held entitled for total reassessed
compensation as follows:
Pain and suffering 60,000/-
Income during laid up period 10,500/-
Total Rs.70,500/-
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
26. Accordingly, point framed for consideration is
answered as partly in affirmative as discussed above and
this Court pass following:
ORDER
(i) Both appeals are allowed in part.
Consequently, judgment and award dated
09.02.2011 passed by Senior Civil Judge
and Additional MACT & I.T. Court, Byadgi,
in MVC no.226/2007 and MVC no.227/2007,
is modified.
(ii) Claimant in MFA no.103784/2015
(MVC no.227/2007) is entitled for
reassessed compensation of
Rs.1,24,100/- as against Rs.20,000/-.
(iii) Claimant in MFA no.103785/2015
(MVC no.226/2007) is entitled for
reassessed compensation of Rs.70,500/-
as against Rs.20,000/-.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3725
HC-KAR
(iv) Said reassessed compensation
amount shall carry interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petitions till
deposit, exclusive delay period of 1680 days
in filing MFA no.103784/2015 and 1680
days in filing MFA no.103785/2015.
(v) Respondent-Insurer is directed to
deposit enhanced compensation before
Tribunal within six (6) weeks from today.
(vi) On deposit, Tribunal is directed to
release entire award amount in favour of
claimants under due identification.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SMM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30
