[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Guddappa S/O Sannappa vs Basavanneppa H Nekar on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
MFA No. 101408 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 101409 of 2015
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.101408/2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101409/2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 101408/2015 :
BETWEEN:
GUDDAPPA S/O SANNAPPA PADIYANNANAVAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O HUNASIKATTI ROAD, SIDDAPUR TANDA,
RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GS HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVANNEPPA H. NEKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O CHIKKURAVATTI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Date: 2026.03.27 10:33:03
+0530
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, PB ROAD, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RS ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.M.A.C.T. RANEBENNUR AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED
JUDGE IN MVC NO.810/2012 DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 2014 BY
SADDLING THE LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION ON THE
RESP.NO.2/INSURANCE CO. AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
MFA No. 101408 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 101409 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO.101409/2015 :
BETWEEN:
RATNAMMA W/O CHIKKAMADA
DAMADOGANNANAVAR @ KOTNALLI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O HUNASIKATTI ROAD, SIDDAPUR TANDA,
RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GS HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVANNEPPA H. NEKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O CHIKKURAVATTI,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSU. CO. LTD.,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, PB ROAD, HUBLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RS ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.M.A.C.T. RANEBENNUR AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED
JUDGE IN MVC NO.811/2012 DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 2014 BY
SADDLING THE LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION ON THE
RESP.NO.2/INSURANCE CO. AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
MFA No. 101408 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 101409 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging common judgment and award dated
14.11.2014 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Ranebennur1 in MVC no.810/2012 and MVC
no.811/2012, these appeals are filed.
2. Sri GS Hulmani, learned counsel for appellants
submitted, appeals were by claimants for enhancement as well
as challenging dismissal of claim petitions against insurer. It
was submitted, at about 10:00 a.m., on 01.10.2011, when
claimants Gundappa S. Padiyannanavar and Ratnamma C.
Damadogannanavar were passengers in Maxi Cab
no.KA.24/3743 proceeding on PB road near Kadaramandalagi
cross, driver drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed
against car no.KA.02/MF-5603. In accident, both claimants
sustained grievous injuries. Despite treatment at Government
Hospital, Ranebennur, Dr.Ullal Clinic, Ranebennur and
Kasturbha Hospital, Manipal, they did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, they filed
separate claim petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
For short, 'Tribunal'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short) against owner and insurer of Maxi
Cab. Same were clubbed.
3. On appearance, claim petitions were opposed on all
counts. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence.
4. Claimants examined themselves and Dr.Ullal as
PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 25. Respondents
examined 1 witness as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1.
5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving by driver of insured vehicle
and claimants were entitled for compensation as follows:
MVC no.810/2012 :
Sl. Amount in
Particulars
No. Rs.
1 Pain and Suffering 30,000/-
2 Medical Expenses, Food, diet Nourishment 12,000/-
& Attendant Charges.
3 Loss of income during laid up period 10,000/-
4 Loss of future income on account of 59,400/-
permanent physical Disability.
5 Loss of Amenities and enjoyment of life 10,000/-
Total 1,21,400/-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
MVC no.811/2012 :
Sl.
Particulars Amount in Rs.
No.
1 For Pain and Suffering 30,000/-
2 Medical Expenses, Food, diet 13,000/-
Nourishment & Attendant
Charges.
3 Loss of income during laid up 7,000/-
period
4 Loss of future income on account 54,000/-
of permanent physical disability
5 Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment 10,000/-
of Life
Total 1,14,000/-
6. Dissatisfied with award, appeals were filed.
7. In MFA no.101408/2015 was against award in MVC
no.810/2012, it was submitted, claimant Gundappa was 51
years of age and earning Rs.10,000/- per month from
agriculture. Without justification, Tribunal considered monthly
income as Rs.4,500/-. And though he sustained fracture of left
scapula, fracture lateral condyle of right tibia and fracture of L4
vertebra, assessed by PW3 to have resulted in 53% physical
disability, Tribunal assessed only 10% as functional disability,
which was glossily in adequate. It was submitted even
compensation awarded towards 'pain and suffering', 'medical
and other incidental expenses', 'loss of income during laid up
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
period' and 'loss of amenities' etc., and prayed for allowing
appeal
8. In MFA no.101409/2015 was against award in MVC
no.811/2012, it was submitted, claimant Ratnamma was 40
years of age and earning Rs.10,000/- per month from
agriculture. Without justification, Tribunal considered monthly
income as Rs.4,500/-. And though she sustained fracture of left
clavicle bone, fractures of 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on left side, as
well as fracture of L5 vertebra, assessed by PW3 to have
resulted in 60% physical disability, Tribunal assessed only 10%
as functional disability, which was glossily in adequate. It was
submitted even compensation awarded towards 'pain and
suffering', 'medical and other incidental expenses', 'loss of
income during laid up period' and 'loss of amenities' etc., and
prayed for allowing appeal.
9. On liability, it was submitted though Tribunal
dismissed claim petition against insurer, in claim petitions filed
by inmates of Car, Tribunal had held insurer of Maxi Cab liable
to pay compensation and insurer had accepted said award and
therefore could not dispute liability in these claims. Copies of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
insurance policy and common judgment in MVCs no.129/2012
c/w 130 to 133/2012 disposed of on 20.03.2013 were produced
along with memo. In view of same, learned counsel prayed for
reversing finding of Tribunal on liability.
10. On other hand, Sri RS Arani, learned counsel for
insurer on instructions admitted to issuance of insurance policy,
covering risk of offending vehicle and acceptance of award
passed in connected claim petitions and fairly conceded to
challenge on liability. However, on quantum, he submitted
Tribunal had awarded just compensation under various heads
which did not call for enhancement.
11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.
12. From above, points that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether dismissal of claim petitions against
insurer called for interference?
ii. Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement
of compensation?
13. Point no.(i) :- In view of production of award in
connected claim petitions and admission about liability, there
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
would be no need for discussion on same. Point no.1 is
answered in affirmative.
14. Point no.(ii) in MFA no.101408/2015 : Though
claimant stated that he was 51 years of age working as
agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- per month, same was not
substantiated. In absence, Tribunal assessed it notionally at
Rs.4,500/-. Since, notional income for year 2011 is Rs.6,000/-,
same has to be considered. As per Medical records, claimant
sustained fracture of left scapula, lateral condyle of left tibia
and L4 vertebra assessed by PW.3 Dr.-Ullal to have resulted in
53% disability. Tribunal assessed functional disability at 10%.
Considering fact that, claimant sustained fracture of back bone,
apart from other fractures, assessment appears in adequate
and enhanced to 15%. Multiplier applicable would be '11' .
Therefore, compensation towards 'future loss of income' would
be :
Rs,6,000/- X 15% X 12 X 11 = Rs.1,18,800/-
15. Noting that claimant sustained three fractures
award of Rs.30,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' would be
grossly inadequate and therefore enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
Considering Medical Bills produced and duration of inpatient
treatment taken, tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards
'Medical and incidental expenses', which is affirmed.
16. Normally fractures take three months to heal.
Considering said period as layoff, instead of Rs.10,000/-,
claimant is awarded Rs.18,000/- towards 'loss of income
during laid up period'. Considering extent of disability sustained
award of Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' would be
inadequate and therefore enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Thus,
claimant would be entitled for total compensation as follows:
Sl.
Particulars Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Pain and Suffering 60,000/-
2 Medical and Incidental Expenses 12,000/-
3 Loss of income during laid up period 18,000/-
4 Future Loss of Income 1,18,800/-
5 Loss of Amenities 30,000/-
Total 2,38,800/-
Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative, accordingly.
17. Point no.(ii) in MFA no.101409/2015 : Though
claimant stated that she was 40 years of age working as
agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- per month, same was not
substantiated. In absence, Tribunal assessed it notionally at
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
Rs.4,500/-. Since, notional income for year 2011 is Rs.6,000/-,
same has to be considered. As per Medical records, claimant
sustained fracture of left clavicle bone, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on
left side and L5 vertebra assessed by PW.3 Dr.Ullal to have
resulted in 60% disability. Tribunal assessed functional
disability at 10%. Considering fact that, claimant sustained
fracture of back bone, apart from other fractures, assessment
appears in adequate and enhanced to 15%. Multiplier
applicable would be '15'. Therefore, compensation towards
'future loss of income' would be :
Rs,6,000/- X 15% X 12 X 15 = Rs.1,62,000/-
18. Noting that claimant sustained three fractures
award of Rs.30,000/- towards 'pain and suffering' would be
grossly inadequate and therefore enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.
Considering Medical Bills produced and duration of inpatient
treatment taken, tribunal awarded Rs.13,000/- towards
'Medical and incidental expenses', which is affirmed.
19. Normally fractures take three months to heal.
Considering said period as layoff, instead of Rs.7,000/-,
claimant is awarded Rs.18,000/- towards 'loss of income
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
during laid up period'. Considering extent of disability sustained
award of Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' would be
inadequate and therefore enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Thus,
claimant would be entitled for total compensation as follows:
Sl.
Particulars Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Pain and Suffering 60,000/-
2 Medical and Incidental Expenses 13,000/-
3 Loss of income during laid up period 18,000/-
4 Future Loss of Income 1,62,000/-
5 Loss of Amenities 30,000/-
Total 2,83,000/-
Point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative, accordingly.
20. In view of above, following
ORDER
i. MFA no.101408/2015 is allowed in part,
judgment and award dated 14.11.2014 passed
by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, Ranebennur in MVC no.810/2012 is
modified, enhancing compensation from
Rs.1,21,400/- to Rs.2,38,800/- with
interest at 7% per annum from date of
petition till deposit.
ii. MFA no.101409/2015 is allowed in part,
judgment and award dated 14.11.2014 passed
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4691
HC-KAR
by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, Ranebennur in MVC no.811/2012 is
modified, enhancing compensation from
Rs.1,14,000/- to Rs.2,83,000/- with
interest at 7% per annum from date of
petition till deposit.
iii. In both Appeals, Respondent no.2 - insurer is
held liable to pay entire compensation and is
directed to deposit same before tribunal within
six weeks.
iv. On deposit, entire amount is ordered to be
released to claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34
