[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Channabasappa S/O Tipanna Tattimani vs Bhagawat Sundar Kolse on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4218
MFA No. 102340 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102340 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
CHANNABASAPPA S/O TIPANNA TATTIMANI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL (AGRICULTURE),
R/O: MURGOD, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHAGAWAT SUNDAR KOLSE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS/AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHINDEWADI, TQ: BEEDI, MAHARASHTRA.
(OWNER OF TRACTOR NO.MH-44T/D-1105
TRAILERS NO.MH-23-C2820 AND MH-23 C-9985)
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
JNANRDHAN BUILDING, NEAR JUBILEE CIRCLE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SS KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.2162/2012 DATED
23.07.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT SAUNDATTI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4218
MFA No. 102340 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 23.07.2014 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Saundatti ('Tribunal', for
short) in MVC 2162/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation on specific ground that no compensation was
awarded towards loss of amenities. It was submitted that on
03.03.2012 at 8:30 p.m., when claimant was walking by side of
Muragod-Rudrapur road, driver of tractor no.MH-44/D-1105,
trailers no.MH-23/C-2820 and MH-23/C-9985 drove it in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against claimant causing
accident. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injury and
despite treatment did not recover fully and sustained loss of
earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against owner and insurer of
tractor trailers.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4218
HC-KAR
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all counts, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and Dr.Manjunath Mudukanagoudar
as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P11. Insurer did
not lead any oral evidence, but got marked copy of insurance
policy with consent as Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver and
claimant was entitled for total compensation of ₹2,63,000/- from
insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum, on solitary ground that
Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of
amenities, prays for allowing appeal.
5. On other hand, Sri SS Koliwad, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 opposed appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
7. From above and since only claimant is in appeal,
point that would arise for consideration is:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4218
HC-KAR
"Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed?"
8. Same is answered 'partly in affirmative' as follows:
It is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another, reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 343 that in case of personal injury
claim based on permanent physical disability
sustained, Tribunal would require to assess
compensation towards loss of amenities apart from
compensation towards pain and suffering, medical
expenses, loss of income during laid up period,
compensation towards diet and other incidental
expenses.
9. Though Tribunal has awarded compensation under
other heads, there is no award towards loss of amenities.
Considering nature and extent of disability, it is found
appropriate to award ₹30,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimant is held entitled for additional
compensation of ₹30,000/- with interest at
6% per annum from date of claim petition till
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4218
HC-KAR
deposit, in addition to award passed by
Tribunal.
iii. Insurer is directed to deposit said
compensation with interest before Tribunal
within six weeks.
iv. Upon deposit, Tribunal is directed to release
same in favour of claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12
