SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE vs SHRI HANAMANT ALIAS HANUMANT S/O NINJGAPPA KARDI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101538 OF 2023 (MV-I)

C/W

MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100007 OF 2024 (MV-I)



IN MFA No. 101538/2023
BETWEEN:

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
CO LTD, THROUGH ITS
DIVISIONAL OFFICE CTS, NO. 477/1M-1,
ST
1 FLOOR, V. A. KALBURGI HALLAMARK,
BESIDE INDUSLAND BANK,
M. DESAI CROSS, PINTO ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580020,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. HANAMANT @ HANUMANT
S/O. NINJGAPPA KARDI
AGE: 24, OCC: CLEANER (NOW NIL)
R/O. HIRENANDI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591233.

2. SHRI. SHRIKANT HANAMANT KARADI,
AGE: MAJOR, BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.550, BHAJANTRI GALLI,
HIRENANDI VILLAGE,
A/P: CHIKNANDI,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591233.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)











Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


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 08.11.2022 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MACT-V, BELAGAVI IN MVC
NO.186/20222, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

IN MFA.CROB NO. 100007/2024
BETWEEN:

SHRI. HANAMANT @ HANUMANT
S/O. NINGAPPA KARDI,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: CLEANER (NOW NIL),
R/O: HIRENANDI VILLAGE,
TALUKA: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591233.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. SHRIKANT HANAMANT KARADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO-550, BHAJANTRI GALLI,
HIRENANDI VILLAGE,
A/O: CHIKNANDI,
TALUKA:GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591233.

( OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO-KA-22/B-9929)

2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
ST
CST NO-477/1M-1, 1 FLOOR,
V.A. KALBURGI HALLAMARK,
BESIDE INDUSLAND BANK,
M. DESAI CROSS, PINTO ROAD,
HUBALI-580020
(INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO-KA-22/B-9920)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SUBHASH J. BABBI, ADVOCATE;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.101538/2023 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
THIS COURT THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08-11-
2022, IN M.V.C NO.186/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-V, BELAGAVI IN
AWARDING RS.11,74,945/- @ 6% PER ANNUM BE KINDLY BE
MODIFIED BY ENHANCING IT TO RS. 30,00,000/- @ 18% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF
THE PAYMENT BY HOLDING THE RESPONDENTS LIABLE TO PAY
THE COMPENSATION, AND THE M.F.A NO-101538/2023 (MV-)
FILED BY THE CROSS RESPONDENT NO-2 MAY KINDLY BE
DISMISSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL MFA CROB AND HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 09.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

CAV JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.11.2022
in MVC No.186/2022 passed by the IV Additional District Judge
1
and MACT-V, Belagavi , the petitioner before the Tribunal filed
cross objection in MFA Crob No.100007/2024 seeking
enhancement of compensation and the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company before the Tribunal filed an appeal in
MFA No.101538/2023 challenging the impugned judgment and
award.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.02.2019 the
petitioner had been to Gokak for loading the goods in a Truck
2
bearing registration No.KA-22/B-9929 along with driver
Shrikant Karadi. While returning on NH-4 highway, Belagavi at
Yogesh Automobiles, they found some problem in the clutch of
the truck and the driver stopped the truck near Gandhi Nagar
Bridge and the petitioner was checking the truck from behind.
During that process, the driver of the said truck all of a sudden
took the truck in a reverse direction and wheel ran over on the
right leg of the petitioner. Due to this impact, the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to
the hospital.

4. The petitioner contended that prior to the accident,
he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month by doing cleaner work and maintaining his family and
his family is totally depending on his earnings. Due to the
accidental injuries, he cannot do his day today activities and he
needs one person support for doing his day today activities and
he has suffered mentally, physically and financially. He stated

2
For short, ‘the truck’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


that, he spent huge amount towards the medical expenses.
Accordingly, he filed claim petition seeking compensation
before the Tribunal.

5. After filing of the petition, notices have been issued
to the respondents. Though notice has been duly served on
respondent No.1, he remained absent. Hence, placed an ex-
parte. However, the respondent No.2 entered appearance
through his counsel and resisted the claim of the petitioner by
filing objections.

6. Respondent No.2 denied the date, time and place of
the accident and also the age, occupation and income of the
petitioner; at the time of alleged accident, the driver of the
truck was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive
the said vehicle and the respondent No.1 knowing fully well
that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving
license, had entrusted the vehicle to him, and therefore, he has
3
contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
Rules and willfully violated the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy; respondent No.1 was plying the said truck on

3
For short, ‘MV Act’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


the public road without a valid permit and valid registration
number and fitness certificate, and hence there is a violation of
provisions of Section 134[c] and 158[6] of MV Act; entire
averments of the claim petition are false; earlier the petitioner
has filed petition claiming compensation under Employees’
Compensation Act before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Belagavi in ECA No.25/2019 which was not pressed by the
petitioner on 27.05.2022 at the stage of petitioner’s evidence
without any proper reasons; now only with an intention to get
excessive compensation, this claim petition is filed which
cannot be entertained at all and also the petition filed under the
MV Act is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself examined
as PW1 and one witness examined as PW2 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P.1 to P.15. On behalf of respondent No.2,
one witness has been examined as RW1 and got marked
Exs.R1 to R3.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



8. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the
claim petition of the petitioner in part with costs as against the
respondents and awarded compensation as under:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Loss of future income due to 8,64,000/-
disability
2 Hospital and medical expenses 1,06,945/-
3 Pain, agony and sufferings 50,000/-
4 Food, nourishment, transportation 24,000/-
and attendant charges
5 Loss of income during laid up 60,000/-
period
6 Loss of amenities in life 40,000/-
7 Loss of marriage prospects 30,000/-
TOTAL 11,74,945/-
Further, the Tribunal directed the respondent No.2 to
deposit the compensation amount with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till realization within a
period of one month from the date of the order.

9. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the petitioner filed cross objection seeking enhancement
of the compensation and the Insurance Company preferred the
appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


is contrary to the law and material on records; the Tribunal not
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in right
prospective manner; the Tribunal erroneously come to the
conclusion that the petitioner was outside the vehicle; the
policy issued to the truck is a comprehensive; the owner of the
truck has not paid the extra premium to cover the risk of the
cleaner, so the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify
the insurer for the injuries caused to the petitioner; the claim
petition is not maintainable before the MACT; the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Accordingly, prayed to
set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
Tribunal has awarded meager compensation and the income of
the petitioner assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. The
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of
loss of amenities; the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of marriage prospects is on meager side.
Accordingly, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



12. 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 saddling
the liability on respondent No.2/Insurance
Company to pay the compensation?

(ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?

(iii) What order?

13. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(iii): As per the final order, for the
following:

14. Regarding Point No.(i): It is an undisputed fact
that on 13.02.2019 when the petitioner was working as a
cleaner in the truck, and the said truck reached near NH-4
highway, Belagavi at Yogesh Automobiles, the petitioner and
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


the driver of the truck found that there is some problem in the
clutch of the truck and the driver stopped the truck near
Gandhi Nagar Bridge and the petitioner was checking the
vehicle from behind. During that process, the driver of the said
truck all of a sudden took the truck in a reverse and wheel ran
over the right leg of the petitioner. Due to this impact, the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately
shifted to the hospital.

15. The petitioner produced the documents i.e., FIR,
complaint, spot panchanama, rough sketch, IMV report, wound
certificate and the charge sheet, which were marked as Ex.P1
to P6 and P9.

16. The contention of the Insurance Company is that
the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before
the Tribunal on the other hand he has to avail the remedy
4
under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 . In this regard, the
petitioner clearly stated that he had filed claim petition in ECA
No.25/2019 before the Commissioner claiming compensation,
later it has been withdrawn.

4
For short, ‘WC Act’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



17. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued
that the policy covers risk of third party, but, in this case the
petitioner is not a third party, so the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, as the extra
premium has not been paid to cover the risk of the cleaner.

18. The insurance policy is marked as Ex.R3. The
evidence indicates that the accident not occurred when the
vehicle was proceeding and the petitioner was sitting inside the
truck. On the other hand, the petitioner was outside the truck
and the driver moved the truck in a reverse direction and
caused the accident.

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankar Dutt v. United
5
Indian Insurance Company Limited and Others , has
considered the question of compensation payable under the MV
Act.

20. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in C. Jayanth
v. The Division Manager, New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd.
6
and Another , at paragraph No.11 has held as under:

5
(2026) 7 SCR 379 : 2026 INSC 656
6
MFA No.9549/2011 dated 11.12.2019
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


“ 11. This Court in the case of Sri. R.
Thippeswamy and Others (supra) has held that the
injured/deceased, even if in employment at the time
of the accident, meets with an accident while he/ she
is outside the vehicle, then such injured/deceased
would become a ‘third party’ notwithstanding the fact
of employment, and such employee would have the
option of either making a claim under the provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as a third party or as
an employee of the insured under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923. If the employee chooses to
make a claim under the provisions of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 as a third party then the liability would be
unlimited as provided under Section 147 (2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The relevant part of the
judgment reads as follows:
“But if other categories of employees at
the time of accident though in the course of
employment are outside the vehicle, then
they would become ‘third party’ under the
Act notwithstanding the fact that such a
person is also an employee of the insured.
Such an employee has the option of either
claiming compensation under the provisions
of the Motor Vehicles Act as a third party or
as an employee of the insured under the
provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act.
If the claim is under the provisions of
Workmen’s Compensation Act, the liability of
the insurance company will be only to that
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


extent as provided under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. If the claim is under the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as a third
party, then the liability would be unlimited
as provided under Section 147(2) of the Act.
It is to be remembered that both the
Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Motor
Vehicles Act are beneficial legislation which
are enacted to protect the interest of victims
to the accident either in the - 11 - course of
employment or on account of use of motor
vehicle. Any interpretation to be placed on
these provisions should be in consonance
with the object with which these enactments
are enacted. Any other view would defeat
the very purpose of the Act. If the victim of
an accident is entitled to compensation
under both the aforesaid enactments, then
that enactment which is more beneficial to
him is to be adopted.”

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramashray Singh v.
7
New India Assurance Company Limited and Others has
observed that the employee was fatally injured when traveling
in the vehicle.

7
(2003) 10 SCC 664
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



22. Again, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in The
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shri. R.
8
Thippeswamy and Others , at paragraph No.15 has held as
under:
“In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Rukmini Bai and Another (1993 ACJ 335)
dealing with a case where claimant had already
alighted from the bus and she had ceased to be a
passenger and, therefore, in relation to the accident,
she was a third party and consequently, the liability
of the insurance company exists to pay the entire
compensation awarded, held if really the claimant
had already alighted from the bus and thereafter the
accident had occurred, the contention urged by them
would have been unexceptionable. But the pleadings
and the evidence in the said case established that
when the claimant was in the process of alighting
from the bus, on account of the bus having been
moved by the driver, she fell down and was hit by
the mudguard of the bus, and thereby she sustained
injuries. In view of the proviso (ii) below Section
95(1) a person in the process of alighting from a
passenger vehicle is a passenger and, therefore, in
the said case it was held that the claimant had
ceased to be a passenger and had become a third
party.”

8
MFA No.3148/2004 dated 29.11.2006
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



23. On careful reading of the above referred judgments,
this Court observes that the victim to the accident may claim
compensation either under the WC Act or under the MV Act,
subject to the statutory conditions and restrictions governing
such claims.

24. In the present case, the petitioner filed a petition in
ECA No.25/2019 before the Commissioner, then he withdrawn
the said petition.

25. The evidence of PW1 and the documents marked as
Ex.P1 to P9 clearly indicates that the petitioner was outside the
vehicle and driver of the said truck suddenly taken the vehicle
in a reverse direction, as such, the wheel of the truck ran over
on the leg of the petitioner. Such being the circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that though there is no extra premium
paid, Ex.R3 is the comprehensive policy, and the petitioner is a
third party, the policy covers the risk of the petitioner.
Therefore, respondent No.1 being the owner of the truck and
respondent No.2 being the insurer of the truck are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Thus, the
contention taken by the Insurance Company that the petitioner
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


is not entitled for compensation and the Insurance Company is
not liable to compensation as extra premium not paid, is not
sustainable.

26. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the
affirmative .

27. Regarding point No.(ii): The contention of the
petitioner that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate.

28. The oral and documentary evidence on record
indicates that the petitioner has sustained crush injuries to his
right leg and there was an amputation below the knee of right
leg. The doctor who examined as PW2, assessed the disability
to the extent of 55%.

29. The doctor deposed that at the time of assessing
rd
the disability, the petitioner complaints pain in the middle 1/3
of tip of remaining part of right leg, and amputation below the
knee of right leg. The disability certificate issued by the doctor
marked as Ex.P14.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



30. The discharge summary marked as Ex.P12 which
reflects that the petitioner got admitted to the hospital for the
second time from the 15.03.2019 and discharged on
19.03.2019. The petitioner was treated at Vijaya Ortho and
Trauma Center, Belagavi from 13.02.2019 to 25.02.2019.

31. The petitioner has not produced any documents to
prove his income, if there is no proof of income, it is up to the
Tribunal to assess the notional income of the deceased/injured
by following the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal
Services Authority. The Tribunal has taken the income of the
petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident is of the year
2019. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner would be
taken at Rs.13,250/- per month.

32. PW2/the doctor assessed the disability to the extent
of 55%. The petitioner was working as a cleaner prior to the
accident, so he cannot carry out job as earlier due to the
accidental injuries. This Court is of the opinion that it is just
and proper to assess the functional disability to the extent of
55% to the whole body.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



33. At the time of accident the petitioner was age 23
years. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation
9
and another , for the age group of 20-25, the applicable
multiplier would be “18” .

34. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
10
in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi ,
to the notional income of the petitioner, 40% towards future
prospects is to be added. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the head of “loss of future income” as
under;
Rs.13,250/- + 40% = Rs.18,550/-
Rs.18,550/- X 12 X 18 X 55% = Rs.22,03,740/-

35. The petitioner has produced medical bills and
hospital bills. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of
Rs.1,06,945/- under the head of “medical expenses”, which
does not call for any interference.

36. The petitioner has sustained crush injuries in the
accident and an amputation below the knee to the right leg. By

9
2009 ACJ 1298
10
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


looking into the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court
is of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to award
compensation of Rs.75,000/- under the head of “pain and
suffering”.

37. This Court awards the compensation of
Rs.50,000/- under the head of “food, nourishment,
transportation and attendant charges”.

38. By looking into the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that at least six months
time require to him to recover. So, awarded compensation of
Rs.70,000/- under the head of “loss of earning during laid up
period”.

39. The petitioner suffered a permanent physical
rd
disability due to amputation of his right leg middle 1/3 below
the knee and he has lost his comforts and happiness. By
considering these aspects, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- is
awarded under the head of “loss of amenities”.

40. The petitioner is unmarried and aged below of 25
years at the time of accident. The injuries sustained by the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023


petitioner in the accident and the amputation affect his
marriage prospects. Hence, compensation of Rs.75,000/- is
awarded under the head of “loss of marriage prospects.

41. In all, the compensation under the following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Loss of future income 22,03,740/-
2 Medical expenses 1,06,945/-
3 Pain and suffering 75,000/-
4 Food, nourishment, transportation 50,000/-
and attendant charges
5 Loss of earning during laid up 70,000/-
period
6 Loss of amenities 75,000/-
7 Loss of marriage prospects 75,000/-
Total 26,55,685/-

42. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.26,55,685/- as against Rs.11,74,945/- awarded by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered partly in the
affirmative.

43. Regarding point No.(iii) : In view of the findings
on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:


Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



ORDER

(i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company
in MFA No.101538/2023 is dismissed.


(ii) The cross objection filed by the petitioner in
MFA Crob No.100007/2024 is allowed in
part.

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.26,55,685/- as
against Rs.11,74,945/- 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) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to
be transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18076
MFA No. 101538 of 2023
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020065442023



(vii) Draw modified award accordingly.

(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.: 45
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 07-11-2026