SRI MALLESH S/O YANKAPPA LAMANI vs SHRI RAHUL S/O SANGRAM KENDRE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101239 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102759 OF 2022 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 101239/2022
BETWEEN:
THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.208, CTS 4818/9B
NABUWALE BUILDING,
SP OFFICE ROAD,
BEHIND SP OFFICE
SUBHAS NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MALLESH YANKAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER
NOW NIL,
R/O. KALMESHWAR NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590012.
2. SHRI. RAHUL S/O. SANGRAM KENDRE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.A/P. BRAHMWADI,
TALUK: AHEMADAPUR, LATUR
MAHARASHTRA-413515.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.11.2021 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL-V,
AT: BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.635/2020, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 102759/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. MALLESH S/O. YANKAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER, NOW NIL,
R/O: KALMESHWAR NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, PIN: 590001
TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RAHUL S/O. SANGRAM KENDRE
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: A/P. BRAHMWADI,
TALUK: AHEMADPUR,
DIST: LATUR, PIN-413515
STATE: MAHARAHSTRA.
2. THE CHOLAMANDALAM
MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
NO.4848/9B, NABUWALE BUILDING,
S.P OFFICE ROAD,
BEHIND S.P OFFICE,
SUBHAS NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590016
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY IV ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL-V,
IN MVC NO.635/2020 DATED 25.11.2021 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25.11.2021
in MVC No.635/2020 passed by the IV Additional District Judge
1
and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-V, Belagavi , the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company preferred an appeal in
MFA No.101239/2022 challenging the liability, whereas, the
petitioner before the Tribunal aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and award preferred an appeal in MFA
No.102759/2022 seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2020 about
12:05 p.m., when the petitioner was driving his truck bearing
1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
2
registration No.KA-48/5177 on the left side of the road on
Mollem towards Usagaon Tisk road near Amigoes Hotel,
Dharbandora, Goa, at that time, another truck bearing
3
registration No.MH-24/AB-7053 , came from the opposite
direction in a high speed, while overtaking another vehicle,
entered the wrong side and dashed against the petitioner's
truck and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, Eicher
Tempo which was coming from behind also hit the petitioner's
truck. Thereby, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries
in the accident and also the truck of the Petitioner was
damaged at worth Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. The petitioner stated that immediately after the
accident, he was taken to the hospital for treatment and he has
spent huge amount towards medical expenses.
5. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and
healthy and earning Rs.5,000/- per day by transporting goods
from Belagavi to Goa and other States. Due to the accident, he
has lost his earning capacity and suffered physical, mental and
2
For short, ‘the truck’
3
For short, ‘offending vehicle’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
financial hardship. Accordingly, he filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal claiming compensation.
6. On filing of the petition, notices have been issued to
the respondents. Though the notice has been served on the
respondent No.1, he remained absent, hence, placed an ex-
parte. Respondent No.2/Insurer of the offending vehicle
appeared through its counsel and filed objections denying the
petition averments and contended that the petitioner and driver
of the offending truck did not possess valid and effective driving
licenses. It is denied that the accident occurred due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and
stated that its liability is subject to the policy terms and
conditions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself examined
as PW1 and the doctor has been examined as PW2 and got
marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the other hand,
respondent No.2 did not examine any witness and got marked
one document as Ex.R1 by consent.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
8. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarding the compensation to the
petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till realization, and further directed the
respondent No.2/insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the
compensation amount within 30 days from the date of the
order. The Tribunal awarded the compensation under the
following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Pain and sufferings 40,000/-
2 Food and nourishment 10,000/-
3 Traveling expenses 10,000/-
4 Medical expenses 97,420/-
5 Loss of future income 5,59,680/-
6 Loss of income during laid up 26,500/-
period
Total 7,43,600/-
9. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award,
the respondent No.2 being the Insurance Company of the
offending vehicle and the petitioner have preferred these
appeals.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
that t here is a delay in filing the complaint as the accident
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
occurred on 24.01.2020, but the complaint has been filed on
27.01.2020, and the delay is not explained by the petitioner;
the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the
petitioner at Rs.13,250/- per month without any basis; the
Tribunal assessed the functional disability to the extent of 22%
to the whole body, which is not correct and it is on the higher
side. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
higher side. Accordingly, prayed for reducing the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued
that the delay is properly explained, and the police constable
was working on the alleged date of accident immediately
intimated to the concerned police and has taken necessary
steps in drawing the spot mahazar etc., and then he filed a
written complaint on 27.01.2020. It is further argued that the
person who is an official has no personal interest in this case;
on the other hand, he was discharging the duty on the
particular date of accident who lodged a complaint and delay
has been properly explained; the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that the petitioner own the truck and himself was
driving the vehicle to Goa for business purpose and met with an
accident. It is submitted that the petitioner was a skilled worker
and driver by profession, so the income assessed by the
Tribunal as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal
Services Authority is not correct and prayed for assessing the
income based on the Minimum Wages Act. It is further
submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of pain and suffering and other heads are on
the lower side. Accordingly, prayed for enhancement of the
compensation.
13. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in not
considering the delay in lodging the
complaint?
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in assessing
the functional disability to the extent of 22%
to the whole body ?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of the compensation?
(iv) What order?
14. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(iii) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(iii) : As per the final order, for the
following:
15. Regarding point No.(i) According to the
Insurance Company, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is exorbitant and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on
the higher side.
16. It is necessary to discuss regarding whether there is
any delay in lodging the complaint. Admittedly, the accident
occurred on 24.01.2020 at 12:05 p.m. and the petitioner
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. Ex.P2 is the
complaint. On looking into the complaint, it reflects that on
27.01.2020, one Sri. Sandeep, Head Constable attached to
Ponda Police Station has lodged a complaint. There is a recital
in the complaint that there was an accident occurred on
24.01.2020, and he received a phone call regarding the
accident. Upon receipt of information, he registered Motor
Vehicles Accident vide No.25/2020 and along with his staff he
went to the spot for further necessary action. This document
indicates that, the concerned police have taken necessary steps
in registering the case.
17. The panchanama is marked as Ex.P3 reveals that
on the date of accident i.e., on 24.01.2020 itself, the spot
panchanama has been drawn and the same day sketch has
been prepared. The petitioner suffered grievous injuries and the
police have filed a complaint and matter has been investigated
and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending
vehicle. The necessary legal action has been initiated by the
concerned police, no trace of foul play. Either of the parties not
disputed the accident which occurred on 24.01.2020. As the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and got admitted to
the hospital, he cannot file a complaint on his own. On the
other hand, someone has taken action which is sufficient. So
only because the FIR is registered on 27.01.2020, the entire
case of the petitioner cannot be doubted and it cannot be
considered as there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint.
18. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the
affirmative .
19. Regarding point No.(ii): Another contention
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company that the Tribunal without any basis assessed the
disability to the extent of 22% to the whole body of the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the
truck. He had produced the copies of the driving license and RC
which marked as Exs.P10 and P11.
20. In the accident, the petitioner has suffered a
fracture. The disability certificate marked as Ex.P13 indicates
that the petitioner got admitted to the hospital on 13.02.2020
and discharged on 26.02.2020. The wound certificates marked
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
as Exs.P4 and P5, which indicate that the petitioner has
sustained the following injuries:
(i) Abrasion (blunt abdominal trauma) 5x1 cm
(ii) Swelling and tenderness with multiple
abrasion (fracture distal end radius)
(iii) Sutured wound
(iv) Swelling and tenderness deformity
(fracture right tibia fibula)
21. Immediately after the accident, the injured was
shifted to Dharbandora Hospital and after first-aid treatment,
he was shifted to GMC Bambolim Hospital, Goa, where he has
been treated as inpatient and undergone operation. Then, he
was shifted to Dr. Uday Naik Hospital, Mudhol, wherein again
he has undergone operation and treated as an inpatient.
22. PW2/the doctor, who had issued a disability
certificate as per Ex.P14, deposed that the petitioner having
50% permanent physical disability to the right lower limb and
15% to the left upper limb. According to the petitioner, he was
a driver by profession but, no material on record to show the
same. The evidence reflects that, he was doing a transport
business at the time of accident and he is the owner of the
truck and he himself was driving the truck to Goa.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower sale. But
he has also not produced any documents to prove the income
and also not produced any documents to show that he was
carrying the goods or driving the transport vehicle as a
profession. He has not made any attempt to examine any
witness in support of his contention and has not produced any
invoice or voucher to show that he was doing transport
business and he himself drive the vehicle every day.
24. The Tribunal has observed and distinguished the
body into three parts i.e., a lower limb, upper limb and neck
and body and waist to the extent of 33% each and consolidated
and equitably distributed the whole body and assessed the
disability to the extent of 22%.
25. On looking into the impugned judgment, this Court
did not find any error committed by the Tribunal in assessing
the disability. On the other hand, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the functional disability to the extent of 22% to the
whole body .
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
26. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that the Tribunal has erred in assessing
22% functional disability, is not sustainable.
27. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in the
affirmative.
28. Regarding point No.(iii): The Tribunal has taken
the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.13,250/- as, the
petitioner has not produced any documents to prove the
income. The accident occurred in the year 2020. So as per the
guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority,
the notional income to be taken at Rs.13,750/- per month.
29. The petitioner was aged 32 years at the time of
accident. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation
4
and another , the applicable multiplier would be “16” . Thus,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head of
“loss of future income” as under:
Rs.5,80,800/-
Rs.13,750/- X 12 X 16 X 22% =
4
2009 ACJ 1298
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
30. By looking into the records of hospitalization and
injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion
that the petitioner has suffered a lot due to the accidental
injuries. So the compensation of Rs.60,000/- is awarded
under the head of “pain and suffering”.
31. Regarding compensation under the head of “food,
nourishment and conveyance charges”, This Court awards
Rs.30,000/- .
32. The Tribunal rightly awarded compensation of
Rs.97,420/- under the head of “medical expenses” based on
the records, which does not call for any interference.
33. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.26,500/- under the
head of “loss of income during laid up period”. By looking into
the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the
opinion that at least three months’ time is required for him to
recover and during that period, he was not in a position to work
and the said loss should be compensated. Hence, it is
reasonable to award Rs.40,000/- under the said head.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
34. Though the petitioner has not proved that he was a
driver by profession and driving truck on every day, the
fracture sustained by the petitioner definitely come in the way
of his personal life and it affects his comforts and happiness.
So, this Court is of the opinion that it is just unreasonable to
award compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of “loss of
amenities”. In all, compensation is awarded under the following
heads:
Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of future income 5,80,000/-
2 Pain and suffering 60,000/-
3 Food, nourishment and 30,000/-
conveyance charges
4 Medical expenses 97,420/-
5 Loss of income during laid up 40,000/-
period
6 Loss of amenities 40,000/-
Total 8,47,420/-
35. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.8,47,420/- as against Rs.7,43,600/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
36. Regarding point No.(iv): In view of the findings
on points No.(i) to (iii), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company
in MFA No.101239/2022 is dismissed.
(ii) The appeal filed by the petitioner in MFA
No.102759/2022 is allowed in part.
(iii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is
entitled to receive compensation of
Rs.8,47,420/- as against Rs.7,43,600/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
(v) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall
deposit enhanced compensation with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
(vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17692
MFA No. 101239 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 102759 of 2022
CNR: KAHC020036792022
(vii) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records
forthwith.
(viii) In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly
disposed of.
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 04-11-2026