[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O. Ramappa Pujari vs Waman S/O. Ganpat Jagtab on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
MFA No. 101811 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101622 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101811/2014 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101622/2014 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 101811/2014
BETWEEN:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DO III PUNE 34, 321/A/2 OSAWAL BHANDU,
SAMAJ BUILDING J N ROAD, OPP: 7
LOVES HOTEL, PUNE MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE
MADIWALE ARCADE CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
R/BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI,
THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI 1. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O. RAMAPPA PUJARI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.24 09:34:41
+0000
R/O: MAJATI, TQ:HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
NOW R/AT: ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
2. SRI WAMAN S/O. GANPAT JAGPAT
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BORAWAKE ALI, POST: SASWAD,
TO: PURANDHAR, DIST: PUNE,
(OWNER OF THE TRUCK NO.MH-12/EQ-9277)
3. SRI DINKAR NARAYAN GADEKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: ES WONDER CITY,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
MFA No. 101811 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101622 of 2014
HC-KAR
BLOCK NO. 504, KATRAJ, PUNE
MAHARASHTRA.
4. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ZINITH HOUSE, KESHAVRAO
KHADE MARG,
MAHALAXMI MUMBAI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY Smt.AA SHABASHKHAN, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI RR MANE, ADV. FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED;
R3 - NOT CLAIMED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED
WITH MVC NO.861/2011 MADE BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT BELAGAVI, EXAMINE THE
SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 13.03.2014 AS
AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO. 101622/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVARAJ S/O RAMAPPA PUJARI ,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE (NOW NIL),
R/O: MAJATI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
NOW AT ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT.AFSHAN A. SHABASHKHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI WAMAN S/O. GANPAT JAGTAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. BORAWAKE ALI, AT POST: SASWAD,
TQ: PURANDHAR, DIST: PUNE, MAHARAHSTRA.
(OWNER OF THE TATA LPT TRUCK
NO. MH.12/EQ-9277)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
MFA No. 101811 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101622 of 2014
HC-KAR
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
D. O. III PUNE, 34, 321/A/2, OSWAL BANDHU,
SAMRAJ BUILDING, J N ROAD, OPPOSITE 7 LOVES
HOTESL, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA.
,
(THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MADIWALE ARCADE,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI).
(INSURER OF THE TATA LPT TRUCK NO.MH.12/EQ-
9277) UNDER POLICY NO.163500/31/2010/3387
VALID FROM 27.09.2009 TO 26.09.2010).
3. SRI DINKAR S/O NARAYAN GADEKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
ES WONDER CITY BLOCK NO.504,
KATRJ, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA.
(OWNER OF LUXURY BUS NO.MH-12/EQ-9007)
4. ICICI LUMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., ZENITH HOUSE,
KESHAVRAO KHADE MARG,
MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI - 400 034.
(INSURER OF LUXURY BUS NO.MH-12/EQ-9007)
(UNDER POLICY COVER NOTE NO.56192580 VALID
FROM 18.02.2010 TO 17.02.2011)
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 & R2 - SERVED);
NOTICE TO R3 & R4 - 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 IN MVC
NO.861/2011 DATED 13.03.2014, PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
M.A.C.T, BELAGAVI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
MFA No. 101811 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 101622 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 13.03.2014
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.861/2011, this
appeal is filed.
2. Sri NR Kuppelur, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by insurer of Truck against finding in
impugned award on negligence. It was submitted that at 04.00
am on 14.03.2010, when claimant was asleep in cabin of
Borewell Rig no.MH-09/T-9129, parked by side of Mumbai -
Goa Highway for repairs, driver of Lorry no.MH-12/EQ-9277
drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
borewell rig. Thereafter, Bus no.MH-12/EQ-9007 dashed
against lorry. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries
and despite treatment, sustained loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, he filed claim petition against owners and insurers of
Lorry and Bus. Despite service of notice, owners did not appear
and were placed ex-parte. Only insurers opposed claim petition
on all counts.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
HC-KAR
3. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant along with Dr.SR Angadi, deposed
as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. Official of
insurer of Lorry deposed as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R4.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry by its driver and
claimant was entitled for compensation of ₹1,51,200/- with
interest at 6% per annum from insurer of lorry. Aggrieved,
present appeal was filed.
5. It was submitted, accident involved three vehicles,
firstly, borewell rig which was parked by side of road against
which insured Lorry collided and thereafter Bus which collided
with Lorry. Therefore, tribunal erred in holding entire
negligence against driver of lorry. On said ground sought for
allowing appeal.
6. On other hand, Smt.AA Shabashkhan, advocate for
claimant submitted, MFA no.101622/2014 was filed by claimant
for enhancement of compensation. She submitted as on date of
accident, claimant was 19 years of age working as cleaner and
earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It was submitted, Tribunal erred
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
HC-KAR
in taking only Rs.4,500/- as monthly income. It was submitted,
claimant sustained fracture of right tibia assessed to have
resulted in 30% disability. However, Tribunal considered
functional disability at 10% which called for enhancement. It
was submitted compensation awarded under all heads was
lower side and sought enhancement.
7. On other hand, Sri RR Mane, learned counsel for
insurer of Bus opposed both appeals.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment & award and record.
9. Since insurer of Lorry and claimant are in appeal,
points arising for consideration are:
1. Whether tribunal was justified in holding Lorry
driver as solely negligent in causing accident?
2. Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought?
10. Point no.1 : As per claimant as well as police
investigation records appreciated by Tribunal reveal, accident
occurred when driver of Lorry drove it in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against parked Borewell Rig in which
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
HC-KAR
claimant working as a cleaner was sleeping. Subsequently, Bus
dashed against Lorry. Such being the case, there would be no
basis for contention that negligence should be apportioned
between drivers of Lorry and Bus, especially when injuries
sustained by claimant herein are as a direct consequence of
Lorry colliding with Borewell rig. And collision between Bus and
Lorry being a later event. Said contention may have been
available in case of a claim by owners of Lorry or Bus for
damages. Point no.1 is answered in affirmative.
11. Point no.2 : Though claimant stated that he was
working as cleaner and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, no
material was produced. Hence, Tribunal was justified in
assessing it notionally. But notional income for year 2010 being
Rs.5,500/-, same has to be considered. Insofar as loss of
earning capacity, Tribunal referred to Ex.P.10 issued by Dr.SR
Angadi examined as PW2 who deposed about 30% permanent
physical disability caused to right lower limb, but without
particulars of its effect on earning capacity. Hence, assessment
of functional disability at 10% by Tribunal is justified. Applying
correct multiplier of '18', 'future loss of income' would be:
Rs.5,500/- X 10% X 12 X 18 = Rs.1,18,800/-.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
HC-KAR
12. Claimant sustained fracture of right tibia. Tribunal
awarded Rs.10,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' which
appears inadequate and enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Tribunal
awarded Rs.25,000/- towards 'medical and incidental
expenses', for inpatient treatment period of 10 days and
medical bills produced, which appears adequate. But, award of
Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities', would be inadequate
and enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Tribunal awarded Rs.9,000/-
towards 'loss of income during period of treatment. Normally
fractures take about 3 months to heal. Considering said period
as layoff, compensation is enhanced with Rs.16,500/-. Thus
claimant would be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.2,00,300/- from insurer of lorry. Point no.2 is answered
partly in affirmative. Consequently following:
ORDER
i. MFA no.101811/2014 filed by insurer of Lorry
is dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to Tribunal for payment.
iii. MFA no.101622/2014 is allowed in part,
enhancing compensation from Rs.1,51,200/-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4336
HC-KAR
to Rs.2,00,300/- with interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till deposit,
payable by insurer of lorry.
iv. It is directed to deposit above compensation
within 6 weeks.
v. On deposit, same is ordered to be released.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CKK, EM / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
