SHIVAPPA S/O. SAVAPPA KAMATI, vs RAMESH S/O. BHIMAPPA NANDI,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104878 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA S/O. SAVAPPA KAMATI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.,
MILK VENDING VEGETABLE GROWING NOW NIL,
R/O. RAJAPUR, MUDALAGI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590010.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMESH S/O. BHIMAPPA NANDI,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC. DRIVER,
(DRIVER AND OWNER)
R/O. MALADINNI, GOKAK TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591329.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
(INSURER) BUS STAND ROAD,
GOKAK-591329.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/ORDER DATED 06.10.2026)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.04.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK M.V.C.NO.1801/2021
AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant and respondent are present and submitted
the copies of the Trial Court records. They further submit that
they are ready to have the matter heard and request the Court
to hear the arguments and pass appropriate orders.
Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
15.04.2023 passed in MVC No.1801/2021 by the XII Additional
District Judge and M.A.C.T., Belagavi, sitting at Gokak, (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner before the Tribunal filed
this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2021 at
about 5.00 p.m., near Lolasur Petrol Pump on Gokak-
Sangankeri Road, when the petitioner was proceeding from
Gokak to Rajapur on a Bajaj CT-100 motorcycle bearing No.KA-
49-E-7836, respondent No.1, being the owner-cum-driver of
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
Mahindra Jeep bearing No.KA-23/M-3212, came from the
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused
the accident. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries and permanent disability and was shifted to
Dr. G.S. Umarani’s Ganga Hospital, where he took treatment as
inpatient. It is further contended that the petitioner incurred
substantial medical expenses and require further treatment. At
the time of the accident, he was aged about 47 years and was
earning livelihood through agriculture, milk and vegetable
vending business. Due to the accidental injuries and resultant
disability, he has suffered loss of income and hardship.
5. Accordingly, petitioner filed a claim petition claiming
compensation.
6. On filing of the petition, notice has been issued to
the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared
and filed the objections.
7. The Respondent No.1 denied the averments of the
petition, including the age, occupation, income, injuries and
disability of the petitioners. He denied that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Jeep
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
and contended that the accident was caused due to the
negligence of the petitioner. He further contended that the
petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the
motorcycle. He stated that the rider of the motorcycle was
charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 3, 181 and 146
read with Section 196 of the M.V. Act. Alternatively, he
contended that the liability, if any, be fastened on respondent
No.2, as the Jeep was duly insured and its documents were
valid as on the date of the accident.
8. The Respondent No.2 denied the averments of the
petition including the age, occupation, income, injuries and
disability of the petitioners. It is contended that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider, who
was not holding a valid driving licence, and that both
petitioners were not wearing helmets. It further alleged
collusion between the petitioners and the police and contended
that respondent No.1, being the owner-cum-driver of the Jeep,
was not holding a valid driving licence, thereby violated the
policy conditions. Furthermore, the compensation claimed is
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
excessive and arbitrary. Hence, prays for dismissal of the claim
petition.
9. On the basis of said contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 07.09.2021
at about 05.00 p.m. near the Lolasur Petrol pump
on Gokak-Sangankeri road when the petitioner as
pillion rider along with rider of motor cycle by
name Maruti were returning from Gokak to
Rajapur on Bajaj CT100 bearing Regd. No.KA-49-
E-7836, at that time, the owner-cumdriver of
Mahindra Jeep bearing Regd. No.KA-23/M-3212
came from opposite direction with great speed in a
rash and negligent manner and thereby, dashed to
the petitioner resulting in multiple injuries and
permanent disablement to the petitioner?
2. Whether the respondent no.1 proves that the
accident in question occurred due to self
negligence of petitioner, and the petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and
insurer of motor cycle No.KA-49-E-7836?
3. Whether the respondent no.2 proves that the
accident in question occurred due to self
negligence of petitioner, and the vehicle of
respondent no.1 is falsely implanted in connivance
with owner and police just to claim compensation
against the insurer?
4. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the
respondent no.1 being the owner-cum-driver of
insured vehicle was not holding the valid and
effective driving license as on the date of accident,
and violated the terms and conditions of policy?
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If yes, how much and from whom?
6. What Order?”
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
10. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got himself
examined as P.W.2 and the doctor is examined as P.W.3, got
marked 42 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.43. On the other hand,
respondent no.2 examined its official as R.W.1 and got marked
two documents as Exs.R.1 and R.2 .
11. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation under
following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount in
Rs.
1 Pain & Suffering 10,000/-
2 Medical expenses 3,40,000/-
Food, Nourishment and
3 5,000/-
conveyance
4 Attendant Charges 5,000/-
Loss of income during Laid of
5 10,000/-
period
6 Loss of future earnings 1,32,000/-
7 Loss of amenities 15,000/-
Total Rs. 5,17,000-00
Rounded off to Rs. 5,17,000-00
12. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this
appeal.
13. Learned counsel Sri.Bahuballi N. Kanabargi
vehemently argued that the Tribunal assessed the disability to
the extent of 10% to the right lower limb and Tribunal failed to
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
appreciate the evidence of the P.W.2-doctor who assessed the
disability and issued a disability certificate assessing the
disability to the extent of 50% in relation to the right lower
limit. Further it is argued that the income assessed by the
Tribunal is on lower side. The compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under head of pain and sufferings, food and
nourishment, attending charges, loss of income during laid-up
period, future earnings and loss of amenities are inadequate
and accordingly, pray for enhancement of the compensation.
14. Learned counsel Smt.Preeti Shashank for the
Insurance Company argued that the evidence indicates that the
fractures are united and there is no difficulty for the petitioner
to do the routine work. Further argued that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and there is no need to
interfere. Accordingly, pray for dismissal of the appeal.
15. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
(i) Whether the petitioner proves that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?
(ii) What order?
16. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the
following:
17. Regarding Point No.(i): The petitioner met with
an accident on 07.09.2021. According to the petitioner, he was
doing an agricultural work and earning ₹15,000/- per annum
from the agriculture and also is having sheep, buffaloes and
cows and doing milk vending business and vegetable business
and thereby earning ₹1,00,000/- per month. But to
substantiate this contention, no material evidence placed
before the Court. When there is no proof of income, it is up to
the Tribunal to assess the notional income of the petitioner as
per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Service
Authority. This accident occurred in the year 2021, the Tribunal
has assessed the income at ₹10,000/-. But as per the chart,
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
the notional income to be taken at ₹14,250/- per month. The
wound certificate-Ex.P.19 indicates that in the accident,
petitioner suffered compound comminuted fracture, tibia and
fibula, lower third left leg and closed fracture, shaft humerus
left arm with radial nerve injury with wrist drop. P.W.2 doctor
issued the disability certificate to the extent of 50%, which is
marked as Ex.P.20. It indicates that, at the time of assessing
the disability, the petitioner complains difficulty in lifting heavy
objects, squatting, sitting cross legged, climbing staircase and
doing other work. But difficulty in squatting, sitting in cross leg,
difficulty in sitting in cross leg and climbing staircase cannot be
treated as a functional disability. In this case, P.W.2 doctor
admitted in the cross examination that the fractures are united.
By considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal
assessed the disability to the extent of 10% to the whole body.
18. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
produced before the Court, this Court is of the opinion that
there is no need to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and
Tribunal rightly assessed the disability to the extent of 10% to
the whole body. Petitioner was aged 51 years at the time of
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
accident. For the age of 51, the applied multiplier would be
‘11’. So, the loss of future income would be ₹1,88,100/- .
19. The medical records indicate that the petitioner got
admitted to the hospital immediately after the accident and
treated as an inpatient for 17 days and he has undergone
operations. Further, he had a follow-up treatment and got
admitted to the hospital for 6 days. Looking into the fracture
sustained by the petitioner and his sufferings due to the
accidental injury, this Court is of the opinion that it is
reasonable to award ₹40,000/- under the head of pain and
suffering .
20. The Tribunal has awarded ₹3,40,000/- under the
head of medical expenses based on the documents produced
before the Court, which does not call for interference.
21. The Tribunal has awarded ₹5,000/- under the head
of food and nourishment and conveyance charges and ₹5,000/-
under the head of attendant charges. By looking into the injury
sustained by the petitioner hospitalization, it is just and
reasonable to enhance the same to the extent of ₹35,000/-
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
under the head of food nourishment, conveyance and
attendant charges .
22. By looking into the fracture sustained by the
petitioner, is of the opinion that at least 3 months time is
required for him to recover. During that period he was not in a
position to work. So it is just and reasonable to award a
compensation of ₹35,000/- under the head of loss of income
during laid up period .
23. The Tribunal has awarded ₹15,000/- under the
head of loss of amenities which it is enhanced to ₹40,000/- .
24. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for
compensation under various heads as under:
1. loss of future income ₹1,88,100/-
2. Towards pain and suffering. ₹40,000/-
3. Towards loss of Amenities. ₹40,000/-
Towards food nourishment,
4. conveyance and attendant ₹35,000/-
charges.
5. Towards medical expenses ₹3,40,000/-
Towards loss of income during the
6. laid-up period. ₹35,000/-
Total ₹6,78,100/-
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
25. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation
of ₹6,78,100/- , instead of ₹5,17,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
26. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the
affirmative .
27. Regarding point No.2 : In view of the finding on
point No.(i), this Court is proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part .
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified holding that the
petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
₹6,78,100/-, as against ₹ 5,17,000 /- awarded
by the Tribunal.
iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16535
MFA No. 104878 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020177492023
iv) Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner.
v) Respondent No.2 -the insurance company shall
deposit the compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment.
vi) Draw modified decree accordingly.
vii) No order as to costs.
viii) In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
ix) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3