[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mukanna S/O Chikkappa Doddamane vs R Savitramma W/O T Nagarajappa on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4660
MFA No. 102551 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102551 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MUKKANNA S/O CHIKKAPPA DODDAMANE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O: GOULAYYANAHATTI VILLAGE, POST: CHIKKAPUR,
DIST: CHITRADURGA, NOW AT VAGEESHNAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GS HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.R SAVITRAMMA W/O T NAGARAJAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GULENAHALLI VILLAGE,
POST: CHIKKAPUR, DIST: CHITRADURGA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
(BY SRI CV ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT);
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.27 09:25:09
+0000
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2013,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.493/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT RANEBENNUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC.
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:4660
MFA No. 102551 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Since matter is of year 2014, it is taken up for disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 31.07.2013
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Ranebennur ('Tribunal', for short) in MVC no.493/2013, this
appeal is filed.
3. Sri Girish S.Hulmani, learned counsel for appellant
submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted, on 24.09.2009 at about 08:15
p.m., when claimant was returning in tractor trailer unit no.KA-
16/T-8568 and T-8569, after unloading banana at Chitradurga,
driver of said vehicle applied brakes suddenly, due to which, he
fell down and sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment
at District Hospital, Chitradurga, SSI Hospital, Davanagere and
Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, he did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim
petition against owner and insurer of tractor trailer under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4660
HC-KAR
4. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.
Claimant examined himself and Dr.Umanath R.Ullal as PWs1 and
2. Exhibits P1 to P28 were got marked. In rebuttal, two
witnesses were examined by respondents as RWs1 and 2 and
copy of insurance policy was got marked as Ex.R1.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of tractor trailer by its driver,
vehicle was duly insured with respondent - insurer and therefore,
claimant was entitled for total compensation of ₹5,92,500/- with
interest at 6% per annum from owner/insurer jointly and
severally. Dissatisfied with same, this appeal was filed.
6. It was submitted, as on date of accident, claimant
was 36 years of age and earning ₹10,000/- per month from
agriculture. However, Tribunal erroneously considered his
monthly income notionally at ₹4,500/-. Further, claimant
sustained fracture of left first rib with dislocation fracture of first
carder vertebra, communited fracture of left and right scapular
bones assessed by PW2 to have caused 80% disability to
affected limb. However, Tribunal assessed functional disability at
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4660
HC-KAR
only 45% and awarded inadequate compensation. It was
submitted, though claimant sustained three fractures, award of
₹50,000/- towards pain and suffering was on lower side and
sought enhancement. It was further submitted, claimant had
taken inpatient treatment for total period of 54 days. Therefore,
award of ₹30,000/- towards food and other incidental expenses
was called for enhancement. It was submitted, Tribunal had
awarded ₹18,000/- towards loss of income during period of
treatment which also called for enhancement. It was lastly
submitted, though PW2 in Ex.P16 - discharge card had clearly
stated that claimant was suffering from monoplegia apart from
restriction of abduction movement of left arm to 80°, Tribunal
had not granted any compensation towards loss of amenities and
therefore, sought for grant of adequate compensation. On said
grounds sought for allowing appeal.
7. There is no representation for respondent - insurer.
8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and award and record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4660
HC-KAR
9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is:
'Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation as sought?'
10. Same is answered 'partly in affirmative' for following
reasons.
11. Though claimant stated that he was earning
₹10,000/- per month from agriculture, same was not
substantiated. In absence, Tribunal assessed it notionally at
₹4,500/- even though notional income for year 2009 was
₹5,000/-. Therefore, ₹5,000/- has to be considered. It is not in
doubt that claimant sustained three fractures i.e. fracture of first
rib, communited fracture of both left and right scapula bones and
fracture of left side brachial plexus assessed by PW2 in Ex.P16 to
have resulted in 80% disability to affected limb. Indeed, in
Ex.P16 - disability certificate, PW2 observed claimant suffering
from monoplegia. He also stated that there was restriction of
movement of abduction of left hand to 80° which would be
restriction of nearly 50%. Other fractures i.e. fracture of rib and
scapula bones may not lead to loss of earning capacity by
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4660
HC-KAR
themselves. On overall consideration, assessment of functional
disability at 45% does not appear to be grossly inadequate as to
call for interference. Therefore, same is sustained. Claimant's
age is 36 years. Multiplier applicable would be '15'. Thus, future
loss of income is reassessed as follows:
₹5,000 x 45% x 12 x 15 = ₹4,05,000/-.
12. When claimant sustained three fractures, award of
₹50,000/- would not appear adequate. Considering number of
fractures, it is found appropriate to enhance compensation
towards pain and suffering to ₹70,000/-. Claimant has taken
inpatient treatment for a period of 54 days as borne on record,
award of ₹30,000/- towards same would appear inadequate and
stands enhanced to ₹50,000/-. Tribunal awarded ₹1,30,000/-
towards medical expenses against bills produced, which would be
in complete reimbursement, leaving no scope for enhancement.
Since ₹5,000/- is hold as monthly income compensation towards
loss of income during laid up period is re-worked to ₹20,000/-.
Though claimant has sustained permanent physical disability of
monoplegia at young age of 36 years, Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation towards loss of amenities. Taking note of his
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4660
HC-KAR
age and occupation, it is found appropriate to award sum of
₹1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Towards loss of future income ₹4,05,000/-
Pain and suffering ₹70,000/-
Towards conveyance, attendant and ₹50,000/-
other incidental expenses
Medical expenses ₹1,30,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period ₹20,000/-
Loss of amenities ₹1,00,000/-
Total ₹7,75,000/-
13. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of ₹7,75,000/- as against
₹5,92,500/- awarded by Tribunal excluding of
314 days being delay in filing appeal. Same
shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from date of
petition till date of deposit.
iii. Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced
compensation within six weeks.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4660
HC-KAR
iv. On deposit, entire amount is ordered to be
released to claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
CLK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27
