UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs SHRI TANAJI S/O RAJARAM NIMBALKAR

- 1 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

th
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100145 OF 2018

(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ND
SITA SMRUTI, 2 FLOOR, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI.



…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. R. R. MANE, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1. SHRI TANAJI S/O RAJARAM NIMBALKAR,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: UGAR KH, TALUKA:ATHANI 591304,
DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW AT SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI 590001.

2. SHRI MAHADEV S/O ATTEPPA JANWAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ALAGUR, TALUKA: JAMKHANDI,
DIST:BAGALKOT-587301.

(OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.
BEARING NO. KA-48/T-9538 WITH TRAILERS
BEARING NOS. 9539-9540)
…RESPONDENTS






YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR

Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2026.11.07
12:25:10 +0530
(SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW
THIS APPEAL BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION

- 2 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


GRANTED TO THE CLAIMANT SUITABLY AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD. 15.09.2017 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER OF ADDL.
MACT, BELAGAVI IN MVC NO. 880/2015 AND TO PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,
INCLUDING THE COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THE APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
02.11.2026, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
ON THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI

CAV JUDGMENT
1. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal
under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, ‘MV Act’), assailing the grant of compensation awarded in
MVC No.880/2015 vide judgment and award dated 15.09.2017
passed by the X Addl. District Judge and Member Addl. MACT,
Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, for short).
2. The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of MV

Act. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident
and injuries suffered by the claimant.
3. The Tribunal, after considering oral and
documentary evidence, awarded compensation under following
heads:
Sl.No. Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Pain and suffering 50,000/-
2 Loss of income during laid up period 40,000/-
3 Loss of future income or earnings 1,62,000/-

- 3 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


4 Loss of happiness and future amenities 25,000/-
5 Medical and other incidental expenses 1,10,000/-
Total 3,87,000/-

4. Learned counsel for the insurance company,
contended that claimant continued his job and has not
produced any documents to show that he did not work for a
period of 6 months due to the injuries suffered in the accident.
However, the Tribunal has wrongly considered functional
disability at 15% and awarded compensation towards laid up
period of 2 months and towards pain and suffering, which is
exorbitant. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Manjula and
1
another and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
2
D.C. Rajanna and another .
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the claimant
contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards pain and suffering is on a lower side and the future
medical expenses have not been awarded. Further, learned
counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

1
MFA 100399/2022 (Dharwad Bench)
2
2001 ACJ 425.

- 4 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


in the case of Soni Sharma Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
3
& Ors.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the available
records.
7. With regard to the avocation and age of the claimant,
there is no dispute, but the Insurance Company has disputed
the disability assessed at 15% as the injured has continued his
service. Admittedly, no documents were produced to show that
the claimant has taken treatment and did not attend his duty
for a period of 6 months. However, insurance company has not
disputed the injuries suffered by the claimant. Hence, it is
relevant to extract the injuries noted in Exhibit P12, which are
as follows:
rd rd
i. Compound fracture M 3 L 3 femur with wound at lateral
rd
aspect L 3 right femur
ii. Comminuted compound fracture patella right side

8. Even the doctor - PW2 has deposed in detail regarding
nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and also the
permanent disability to the extent of 40% to the whole body,
however the Tribunal has fixed disability at 15%.
9. In the above-mentioned case of Soni Sharma relied
upon by the claimant herein, the claimant therein was working

3
Civil Appeal No.15224/2025 (arising out of SLP (C) 20569/2025)

- 5 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


as a Lance Naik in Indian Army and Tribunal had assessed
disability at 18%, whereas the High Court, by observing that he
has not taken premature retirement and he has suffered loss of
promotional prospects, revised the award by reducing the
compensation awarded. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the continuation of service or non-availing of premature
retirement could not have been determinative of the issue, as
loss of earning capacity may subsist notwithstanding
continuation in employment.
10. In the case of B.C. Rajanna noted supra , relied upon
by the Insurance Company, this Court held that it is
unfortunate that in almost all cases, the Tribunal, without
applying its mind and appreciating evidence, blindly awarded
compensation under the head of ‘loss of future earning’. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Manjula noted
supra, did not award compensation ‘towards loss of future
income due to disability’, upon considering the fact that injured
continued in service as a staff nurse and has not produced
documents to show that she was removed from service.
Thereafter, the Division Bench proceeded to award
compensation under the head of ‘loss of amenities’ considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and based on the

- 6 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


evidence of the doctor. Therefore, taking note of the above
citations, I deem it appropriate to ascertain whether the extent
of injuries sustained has adverse impact on claimant’s
avocation.
11. In the present case, claimant has not produced
documents to show that he has taken voluntary retirement or
that after the accident, he is not working. As per the available
materials, he has continued in the same job.
12. The Tribunal, after considering the medical documents
and evidence of the doctor, rightly held that the claimant has
suffered serious injuries and disability. Therefore, in my
considered opinion, he is entitled for ‘loss of amenities’ but is
not entitled for ‘loss of future income or earnings’.
13. Further, in view of the serious injuries suffered by the
claimant, Tribunal held that definitely he could not have
attended the job for a period of 4 months and has rightly
awarded compensation under the head of ‘loss of income during
laid up period’. Further, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the claimant, under the head of ‘pain and suffering’,
Tribunal has awarded meager compensation which needs to be
reassessed as claimant has suffered three fractures. Therefore,
claimant is entitled for modified compensation as under:

- 7 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


Sl.No. Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Pain and suffering 75,000/-
2 Loss of income during laid up period 40,000/-
3 Loss of amenities 1,00,000/-
4 Medical and other incidental expenses 1,10,000/-
Total 3,25,000/-

14. Keeping in view the principles laid down in Puttama
4
and Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another and
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Malyadri
5
M , I opine that since claimant has suffered grievous injuries
and also has suffered disability, it is appropriate to grant
interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the award.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.100145/2018 is partly allowed.
ii. The judgment and award in MVC No.880/2015
dated 15.09.2017 passed by the X Addl. District
Judge and Member of Addl. MACT, Belagavi, is
modified with regard to the compensation awarded.
iii. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
₹3,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.

4
(2013) 15 SCC 45
5
NC-2026-KHC 25458 disposed of on 01.07.2026

- 8 -
MFA No. 100145 of 2018


iv. The Insurance Company-appellant herein shall
deposit the compensation, together with accrued
interest, before the Tribunal within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment.
v. The Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit,
if any, made by the Insurance Company along with
Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
vi. Registry to draw modified award.


SD/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE





KGK /CT:CNB