[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Narsing vs Deepak Sharnappa Wadikar And Anr on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
MFA No. 200940 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200940 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NARSING S/O SHARNAPPA KAMBLE,
AGED:40 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER
CUM OWNER, R/O. BASAVANAGAR,
BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEEPAK SHARNAPPA WADIKAR,
AGED:MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O. VILLAGE KALWADI,
TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR- 585 328.
(OWNER OF VEHICLE).
Digitally signed by
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
Location: HIGH UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BRANCH OFFICE PARWATINATH COMPLEX,
BESIDES SANGMESH THEATER, DHULPETH
AREA BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR - 585 328.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DATED 09.12.2021 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
MFA No. 200940 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN MVC NO.113/2016 ON THE FILE COURT OF THE
ADDL. MACT AND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BIDAR SITTING AT BHALKI. B) TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.113/2016
ON THE FILE COURT OF THE ADDL. MACT AND ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR SITTING AT BHALKI
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted
by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl.
MACT, Bidar, sitting at Bhalki, (for short 'the Tribunal') as per the
judgment and award dated 12.07.2019 in the petition in MVC
No.113/2016, the appellant/ claimant has come up with the
appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
MV Act'), praying for an order to allow the appeal and enhance
the compensation.
2. The case of the claimant is that on 12.07.2015 he
was returning home on his bicycle on the left side of the road and
at about 07.30 p.m., when he came near Kalwadi, the rider of the
Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-39/J-7695 (the offending
vehicle) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
him. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous
injuries to his hands, legs, chest, forehead, left leg below knee
and also compound fracture to mid shaft of left radius with
displacement. Immediately, he was shifted to Government
Hospital, Bhalki and thereafter, he was admitted to Shree
Gajanan Hospital, Bidar, wherein he was treated as inpatient for
2 to 3 days. The claimant was aged about 36 years and he was
hale and healthy and earning of Rs.500/- per day i.e.,
Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, he has suffered permanent disability and he is unable
to earn any income. The respondent No.1 is owner/offending
vehicle and the respondent No.2 is insurer of the offending
vehicle. The insurance policy was valid as on the date of accident.
Hence, the claimant sought for allowing the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
3. The respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their
respective counsel and filed separate written statements denying
the petition averments regarding the accident and also regarding
age, income and nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant
as false. The respondent No.1 contended that there was no
negligence on the part of the rider of Motorcycle. It is further
submitted that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent
No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the
compensation.
4. The respondent No.2 denied the petition averments
and it is contended that the rider of the Motorcycle did not
possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of
accident and there was violation of the policy conditions.
Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed against the
respondent No.2.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence.
The claimant, in order to prove the case, got examined himself as
PW-1 and he also examined the Doctor as PW2. The claimant
produced and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P15. On the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
other hand, respondents did not adduce any oral evidence or
produce any documents.
6. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and
considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal holding that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of
the offending Motorcycle, allowed the petition in part and
awarded compensation of Rs.2,56,500/- with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation.
7. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,
the claimant has come up with the present appeal.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the
claimant is that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding
the compensation of Rs.2,56,500/- as against the reasonable
claim of Rs.11,30,000/-. It is further contended that the claimant
suffered grievous injuries and the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is inadequate and it requires enhancement.
9. As per the evidence of the doctor, the appellant has
suffered permanent disability at 22% to the whole body. But the
Tribunal has considered at 10%. Further, the claimant was
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
earning Rs.15,000/- per month working as driver, but the
Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-
only. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other
heads is just and reasonable. Therefore, the learned counsel for
the claimant has sought for modifying the impugned judgment
and award by enhancing the compensation.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 has submitted that the Tribunal awarded just
and reasonable compensation under the impugned judgment and
award. The impugned judgment does not require any
modification by enhancing the compensation and hence, he has
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. It would be worth to note that the respondent No.2
has not challenged the impugned judgment and award.
Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of the offending Motorcycle by its
rider stands not disputed.
12. Moreover, as per the evidence of the claimant and the
wound certificate at Ex.P7, the claimant suffered injuries, which
are grievous in nature. As per the discharge slip at Ex.P13 and
receipts at Ex.P14, the claimant was treated as inpatient for 2
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
days at Shree Gajanan Hospital from 13.07.2015 to 14.07.2015.
Hence, considering the nature of the injuries and treatment
taken by the claimant, the compensation of Rs.80,000/- is
awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering'.
13. Even though the claimant has contended that he was
working as Auto rickshaw driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month, there is absolutely no independent oral and documentary
evidence on record to substantiate the same. The accident
occurred in the year 2015 and hence, the Tribunal has rightly
considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-.
14. As per the evidence of PW2 Doctor, the claimant
suffered permanent disability at 22% to the whole body. But the
Tribunal has taken into consideration to the whole body disability
at 12%. The claimant was aged 36 years. Hence, as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier applicable to the case
on hand would be '15'. Accordingly, the compensation payable to
the claimant under the head of 'Loss of Future Earnings' would
be 12% of Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 15, which amounts to
Rs.1,72,800/-.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
15. Further, the claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8000/-x3 months) under the head of 'loss of
income during laid up period'. Moreover, the PW2 - the Doctor
who examined the claimant for assessing the disability of the
claimant has stated that the claimant would require treatment
for removal of the implants in the left radius and the same would
be requires Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. There is no reason to
disbelieve the said evidence. Consequently, the compensation of
Rs.20,000/- is to be awarded under the head of 'expenses for
future medical treatment', which shall not carry any interest. The
compensation granted under other heads stands intact.
16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following
compensation:
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of future earnings 1,72,800/-
Pain and suffering 80,000/-
Medical expenses 16,500/-
Conveyance and attendant 15,000/-
charges
Food and nourishment 15,000/-
Loss of laid up period 24,000/-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
Expenses of Future medical 20,000/-
treatment
Total 3,43,300/-
17. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.86,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the
amount of Rs.66,800/- from the date of petition till realization, as
the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- granted under the head
does not carry any interest. The respondent No.1 being the
owner/ insured and the respondent No.2 being the insurer are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The
respondent No.2 is vicariously liable to pay the compensation.
18. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a. The appeal is allowed in part.
b. The judgment of the Tribunal is modified.
c. The claimant is entitled to an enhanced
compensation of Rs.86,800/-, in addition to
the compensation of Rs.2,56,500/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2587
HC-KAR
d. The claimant is entitled to interest at 6% p.a.
on the amount of Rs.66,800/- from the date of
petition till realization. The claimant is not
entitled for interest on the amount of
Rs.20,000/- granted under the head expenses
towards future medical treatment.
e. The respondent No.2/ Insurance Company is
directed to enhance compensation amount
along with interest at 6% p.a. on the amount of
Rs.66,800/- from the date of filing of the
petition till the date of realization, within one
month from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE
AMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
CT: SB
