[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri.Piraji S/O Bhavaku Vetal vs Shri.Yallappa Dattu Kamble on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4543
MFA No. 103062 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103062 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRI PIRAJI S/O BHAVAKU VETAL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: MASON, NOW NIL,
R/O: VITTAL GALLI, KALLEHOL,
TQ:& DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI YALLAPPA DATTU KAMBLE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: ALATAGE VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, NO-25/1,
BUILDING NO-2, SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING,
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
(BY SRI SK KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.25 09:36:47
+0000
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED IN MVC NO.1225/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI
DATED 31.07.2015 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4543
MFA No. 103062 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 31.07.2015 passed
by XI Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi ('Tribunal',
for short) in MVC no.1225/2014, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Harish S.Maigur, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted that on 07.05.2014 at 03:30
p.m., when claimant was riding motorcycle bearing no.KA-22/Y-
2023 from Belagavi towards Kallehol, driver of Car no.KA-22/N-
5799 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against
motorcycle. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and
despite treatment at BIMS Hospital, Belagavi, he did not recover
fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed
claim petition against owner and insurer of car under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear and
was placed ex-parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition on all
grounds. Even pillion rider in said accident had sustained injuries
and had filed claim petition. Both were clubbed together. Based
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4543
HC-KAR
on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimants along with Dr.Satish D.Patil deposed as PWs1 to 4 and
got marked Exhibits P1 to P51. Insurer did not lead oral
evidence, but got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver, car was
insured with insurer and claimant was entitled for global
compensation of ₹20,000/- with 6% interest from insurer.
Dissatisfied with same, appeal was filed.
5. It was submitted, Tribunal was not justified in
awarding global compensation disbelieving material on record. It
was submitted, treatment records such as discharge summary,
OPD slip, wound certificate, X-ray report, disability certificate,
photographs, medical bills and X-rays got marked by claimant
would indicate claimant sustained muscle deep lacerated wound
10 x 5 cm as well as another lacerated wound 6 x 5 cm on right
leg. Same had led to formation of ugly scar and fusion of skin
affecting loss of earning capacity of claimant who was working as
a mason. It was submitted, claimant took inpatient treatment for
36 days and produced medical bills for ₹3,500/-. Therefore,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4543
HC-KAR
Tribunal ought to have awarded separate compensation towards
pain and suffering, loss of income during laid up period,
incidental expenses and towards disfigurement. On said grounds
sought for allowing appeal.
6. On other hand, Sri SK Kayakamath, learned counsel
for respondent no.2 - insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted,
based on appreciation of material, Tribunal passed award
granting global compensation and same does not call for
enhancement.
7. From above only point that arises for consideration
is:
'Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought?'
8. Same is answered 'partly in affirmative' for following
reasons.
9. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident and claimant sustaining injuries on account of rash and
negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver. Tribunal granted
global compensation of ₹20,000/-. It noted from wound
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4543
HC-KAR
certificate that claimant had sustained two lacerated wounds
over right leg measuring 10 x 5 cm and 6 x 5 cm without
sustaining any fracture. Though Dr.Satish D.Patil had issued
disability certificate assessing 20% disability to right lower limb,
taking note of fact that injuries were simple and claimant had not
sustained any fracture, disbelieved disability certificate.
However, wound certificate would describe lacerated injuries as
grievous. Considering size and depth of injuries along with
wound certificate, discharge card, photographs, medical bills, it
is seen that claimant sustained grievous injuries, took inpatient
treatment a period of 36 days and sustained skin depression and
fusion at two points on his right leg and his right leg leaving ugly
scars. Considering same, Tribunal ought to have assessed
compensation under each of heads separately.
10. Taking note of injuries, it is found appropriate to
award ₹15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering
claimant took inpatient treatment for a period of 36 days in
Government Hospital, it is found appropriate to award sum of
₹15,000/- towards incidental expenses. Claimant has produced
medical bills for ₹3,500/- which is awarded. Claimant has
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4543
HC-KAR
sustained disfigurement. Considering age and occupation, it is
found fit to award sum of ₹15,000/- towards disfigurement.
However, finding of Tribunal that injuries sustained is not
established to have resulted in permanent physical disability or
loss of earning capacity is sustained. Taking note of duration of
inpatient period, claimant is awarded ₹10,000/- towards loss of
income during laid up period. Consequently, claimant is held
entitled for total compensation of ₹58,500/- as against
₹20,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Same shall carry interest at 6%
from date of claim petition till deposit. Respondent no.2 - insurer
is directed to deposit same before Tribunal within six weeks. On
deposit, Tribunal is directed to release entire compensation in
favour of claimant.
11. In terms of above, appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16
