SHRI SUBHAS S/O NURAPPA RATHOD vs SHRI MALLIKARJUN S/O GANGAPPA MALGI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100192 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SUBHAS
S/O. NURAPPA RATHOD
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE, NOW NILL,
R/O: DABOLIM GOA/RAMAPURTANDA,
NOW AT BAILHONGAL,
PIN-591102,
TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN
S/O. GANGAPPA MALGI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: PLOT NO. 214,
ND
2 FLOOR, GOMTESHWAR COMPLEX,
SASMOLLEM BAINA,
VACO DA GAMA,
MURMUGAO,
DIST: SOUTH GOA-403802.
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
ABOVE BELLAD AND COMPANY,
II FLOOR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, AT: HUBBALLI,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SHRI. RAMESH SHETTY JUTTUR
S/O. VARAHAL SHETTY JUTTUR,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO. F-8,
VALAMIKI BUSINESS CENTRE,
BAINA, MORMUGAO, VASCO,
SOUTH GAO-403804.
…RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH;
BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT., BAILAHONGAL IN M.V.C. NO.1679/2018 DATED
19.02.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 19.02.2022
passed in MVC No.1679/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and
Additional M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
petitioner before the Tribunal being an appellant preferred this
appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.01.2018, at
about 8:35 p.m., the petitioner while riding respondent No.3’s
Suzuki scooter from Bogmalo Beach towards Dabolim, the
driver of Maruti Suzuki Ertiga bearing No.GA-06-E-4074, driven
it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his
scooter. Due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and
underwent treatment and surgery at the hospitals. He was 17
years old, working in respondent No.3’s grocery store and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month, and that the accident caused
him permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. Hence,
the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation.
4. Upon service of notice, respondents appeared
through their counsels and field their separate objections to the
claim petition.
5. Respondent No.1 denied the averments of the
petition and contended that he is the owner of the Maruti
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
Suzuki Ertiga bearing No.GA-06/E-4074 and denied the
petitioner’s age, income, occupation, injuries, treatment,
medical expenses and manner of the accident. He denied the
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and contended that
the compensation claimed was excessive and without basis. He
further submitted that the driver held a valid driving licence
and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. Hence,
respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation and sought for
dismissal of the petition.
6. Respondent No.2 denied the petitioner’s age,
occupation, income, injuries, treatment, medical expenses and
manner of the accident and contended that the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the petitioner resided in
Goa and the accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Vasco
Police Station. It is further contended that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the scooter on
the wrong side of the road, resulting in contributory negligence
and that the rider was a minor. The petition was bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties, and its liability was subject to the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the validity of
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
the vehicle documents. Hence, it sought for dismissal of the
petition.
7. Respondent No.3 denied the petitioner’s age,
income, occupation, injuries, treatment, medical expenses and
manner of the accident and contended that the compensation
claimed was excessive and without basis. He denied employing
the petitioner as a coolie or paying him a monthly salary of
Rs.15,000/-. He further contended that the petitioner was a
regular customer at his grocery shop and had taken the scooter
keys from the counter without his knowledge. Hence, he denied
any responsibility for the accident and prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
8. On the basis of said contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“1) Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained injuries in the road accident that was
occurred on 20.01.2018 at about 8.35 am, on
Dabolim-Bogmalo Beach Road near, Cliff Hotel at
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
Dabolim, due to rash and negligent riding of rider
of LMV Car bearing No.GA.06/E -4074?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much? from whom?
3) What Order?”
9. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has examined
himself as PW.1, the Doctor is examined as PW.2 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to P.27. Per contra, respondents have not let
any evidence either oral or documentary.
10. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation under
following heads:
1 Pain and suffering. Rs.50,000/-
2 Medical expenses. Rs.2,13,812/-
3 Future medical expenses. Rs.1,30,000/-
4 Towards diet food nourishment,
attendant and conveyance
charges.
Rs.20,000/-
5 Towards loss of future earning
capacity due to permanent
disability.
Rs.7,12,800/-
6 Loss of income during laid up Rs.30,000/-
period.
7 Towards loss amenities of and Rs.30,000/-
enjoyment in life.
8 Loss of marriage prospects. Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.12,86,612/-
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
11. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this
appeal.
12. Learned counsel Sri.Hanamant R. Latur argued that
the Tribunal assessed the disability to the extent of 33% to the
whole body, which is in lower side; the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal under various heads are on lower side; there is
an amputation above the knee. But the Tribunal has not
appreciated this aspect in the impugned judgment.
13. Learned counsel Sri.Nagaraj C. Kollori argued that
the petitioner was aged about 17 years and he completed his
SSLC and the injury sustained by the petitioner will not come in
the way of his life, for the reason that he can opt any other job
suitable for him to survive. Accordingly, pray for dismissal of
the appeal.
14. 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 petitioner proves that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
(ii) What order?
15. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the
following:
16. Regarding Point No.(i): The accident is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered
a fracture of shaft right femur, fracture of distal neurovascular
defecit end of right leg and fracture of phalynx of left great toe
and a limb is amputed.
17. P.W.2 doctor assessed the percentage of physical
disability to the extent of 80% to the right lower limb and 20%
with respect to the right upper limb. Further the doctor has
stated that the petitioner required regular prosthesis, its
required replacement due to wear and tear of the prosthesis,
which approximate costs around ₹1,00,000/- and also stated
that, the petitioner required further surgery for implant removal
from right wrist and its approximate cost of ₹30,000/-. Further
the evidence indicates that, at the time of assessing the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
disability, the petitioner complains pain in right stump and right
wrist and restriction of movement of right hip and right elbow,
right forearm and right wrist and difficulty in lifting weight and
taking objects from the right hand. He also complains difficulty
in walking, standing, sitting with cross legs and also facing
difficulty to do routine work. According to the petitioner, prior
to the accident, he was working as a coolie. The Tribunal
awarded compensation of ₹50,000/- under the head pain and
sufferings. In this case petitioner is having an amputation along
with other fractures as discussed. So it is just and reasonable
to enhance the compensation from ₹50,000/- to ₹1,00,000/-
under the head of pain and sufferings .
18. Due to accidental injury, he has lost his comforts,
happiness and enjoyment in his life. So it is reasonable to
enhance the compensation of ₹1,00,000/- under the head of
loss of amenities .
19. The Tribunal is rightly awarded ₹1,00,000/-
compensation under the head of marriage prospectus . It
does not call for any interference.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
20. The Tribunal awarded ₹30,000/- under the head of
loss of income during laid up period. Since there is an
amputation and other fractures, this Court is of the opinion
that, at least 6 months’ time is required for him to recover,
during that period, he was not in a position to work and earn.
So it is reasonable to award a compensation of ₹75,000/-
under the head of loss of income during laid up period .
21. Under the head of food, nourishment, attendant
and conveyance charges . This Court awarded ₹50,000/- .
22. The Tribunal has rightly awarded medical
expenses to the tune of ₹2,13,812/- based on the document
produced by the petitioner.
23. Further the doctor in his evidence deposed that
₹1,30,000/- is required for the future medical expenses.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a compensation
of ₹1,30,000/- under the head of future medical expenses .
24. The loss of income due to permanent disability is
concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner
at ₹11,750/-. The doctor assessed the disability to the extent of
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
80% with respect to the right lower limb and 20% with respect
to the right upper limb.
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amar Singh Vs.
Rajendra Singh and another reported in (2026) ACJ 808 ,
wherein at paragraph No.7 it reads as follows:
“7. As regards the computation of functional
disability, it is evident that the High Court assessed the
same at 60 per cent. However, such an assessment
does not, in our considered view, adequately reflect the
true impact of the injuries sustained by the claimant-
appellant on his earning capacity. The claimant-
appellant was a road machine operator. A vocation
demanding the co-ordinated use of all four limbs,
inherently technical, and requiring robust cognitive
abilities. The evidence confirms that the claimant
suffered amputation of his left leg, which has directly
impaired his cognitive abilities. In such vocations,
cognitive competence is essential to employability.
Any significant reduction in it undermines the
individual’s ability to perform their occupation
effectively. Thus, functional disability extends beyond
mere physical impairment percentage; it must reflect
the true impact on earning capacity.”
26. Further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of S. Ettiappan Vs. D. Kumar and
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
another reported in (2026) ACJ 969 wherein at paragraph
Nos.4 and 9 read as under:
“4. The appellant while walking on the road on
28.9.2011 was hit by a lorry driven in a rash and
negligent manner which resulted in grievous injuries
being sustained by the appellant and it resulted in
amputation of his right leg below the knee. A claim
petition came to be filed seeking compensation of
Rs.80,00,000 and the Tribunal after considering the
pleadings and appreciation of both oral and
documentary evidence by its judgment and award
dated 1.4.2022 awarded a total compensation of Rs.
10,30,500 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum
from the date of petition till date of payment. By the
impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal in
part and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 15,99,000
with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum. Hence, the
present appeal.
9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has vehe-mently contended that appellant
requires to be awarded compensation towards
purchase of artificial limb, we are not impressed by the
said argument for reasons more than one. Firstly, the
claimant did not produce any material to show the cost
or value of the artificial limb which he proposed to
purchase. Secondly, fourteen years have lapsed and no
addi-tional evidence has been placed before this court
to establish this fact. For these reasons, the claim of
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
Rs. 3,10,000 towards purchase of artificial limb would
not be in the realm of reality and as such we are
unable to accept the said contention. However, taking
into consideration that the claimant may have to spend
some amount toward purchase of artificial limb a
reasonable compensation can be awarded and it would
meet the ends of justice.”
27. By looking into the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and the amputation undergone by the petitioner, this
Court is of opinion that, it is just and reasonable to assess the
disability to the extent of 80% to the whole body. The Tribunal
has taken income of the deceased at ₹10,000/-. The accident
occurred in the year 2018. Hence as per the guidelines issued
by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority the notion income
would be ₹11,750/- and appropriate multiplier would be ‘18’. In
view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
1
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi ,
40% of the income is added towards future prospects.
Accordingly, the compensation of ₹28,42,560/- is awarded
under the head of loss of future income .
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
28. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under various heads as under:
1. Loss of future income. ₹28,42,560/-
2. Towards pain and suffering. ₹1,00,000/-
3. Towards loss of Amenities. ₹1,00,000/-
Towards medical attendant,
4. nourishing food and other ₹50,000/-
incidental expenses.
6. Towards medical expenses ₹2,13,812/-
Towards loss of income during the
7. ₹75,000/-
laid-up period.
Towards loss of marriage
8. ₹1,00,000/-
prospects.
9. Towards future medical expenses. ₹1,30,000/-
Total ₹36,11,372/-
29. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of ₹36,11,372/- , instead of ₹12,86,612/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
30. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative .
31. Regarding point No.(ii) : In view of the finding
point No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is partly allowed .
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal, is modified holding that the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16798
MFA No. 100192 of 2023
CNR: KAHC020162052022
claimant is entitled for total compensation of
₹36,11,372/- as against ₹12,86,612/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
realisation.
iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the enhanced
compensation to the petitioner.
iv) 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.
v) Draw modified decree accordingly.
vi) No order as to costs.
vii) In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
viii) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 13-10-2026