SIDDAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA @ DYAMANAGOUDA vs KHASIM ALI S/O BASHUSAB DODDAMANI,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103364 OF 2017 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SIDDAPPA S/O. DYAMAPPA @ DYAMANAGOUDA
KONANAGOUDRA @ BEVORR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND MASON,
R/O: HIREKASANAKANDI,
TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KHASIM ALI S/O BASHUSAB DODDAMANI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: NEAR WATER TANK,
BENKI NAGAR, KOPPAL,
TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.

2. BASAPPA S/O DODDAGANGAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O: 8/7/9 WARD NO. 8, B1 NO. 7
CEMENT COMPANY, KOPPAL
TQ. AND DIST.: KOPPAL-583231.

2A) DURGAMMA W/O BASAPPA NARGUND
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

2B) GANGAPPA S/O BASAPPA NARGUND
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,

2C) KARILINGA S/O BASAPPA NARGUND
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOW,
ALL ARE R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR BANNIKATTA
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.














ROHAN
HADIMANI
T

Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.11.03
14:37:44 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


3. THE LEGAL MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALA,
MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD
# 116/7, NIRMAL BUILDING,
OPP. COSMO POLITAN CLUB,
DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI-583231.

4. VEERESH S/O ADAVAPPA VAKRA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE,
R/O: KASANAKANDI,
POST: HIREBANGANAL,
TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE R3;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED;
R2(A TO C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND AWARD
COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AND SADDLE THE
ENTIRE LIABILITY ON THE RESPONDENTS (I.E. INSURANCE
COMPANY) BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
16.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.28/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOPPAL, 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 RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the claimant filed under Section 173(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’),
assailing the judgment and award dated 16.06.2017 passed in
MVC No.28/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, Koppal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement
of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to according to their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.2012, at
about 4:00 p.m., the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider
on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-37/L-8971 towards
Hirekasinkandi Village, and respondent No.4 was riding the said
motorcycle. When they were proceeding near MR Dhaba at
Irkalgada, respondent No.1 being the driver of a TATA Ace
vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-37/9096 had allegedly
parked the vehicle on the road without displaying any warning
signals or indicators. It is further contended that, owing to the
drizzling and the prevailing road conditions, respondent No.4

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


could not notice the parked TATA Ace vehicle, as a result of
which the motorcycle dashed against the said vehicle.

4. As a result of the accident, the petitioner and
respondent No.4 both sustained injuries. Immediately after the
accident, they were shifted to the Government Hospital,
Koppal, where they received first aid. Thereafter, the petitioner
was shifted to SDM Hospital, Dharwad, for further treatment.
The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner is
stated to have undergone several surgical procedures during
the course of treatment, his wife and brother accompanied him
and attended to him during his hospitalisation.

5. After considering the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle and partly allowed the claim petition by awarding a total
compensation of Rs.10,43,600/-. with interest at the rate of
6% per annum.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017



6. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has
preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

7. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Siddappa Sajjan,
appearing for the appellant, learned counsel Sri.Vijayakumar
Balagerimath, appearing for the respondent No.1 and learned
counsel Sri.R.R.Mane, appearing for respondent No.3.
Respondent No.4 served and unrepresented. Perused the
records.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant – claimant
contended that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and not in accordance with the settled principles
governing award of compensation.

9. He submitted that, the claimant had sustained
grievous injuries in the accident and underwent treatment also
undergone various operations. The doctor, who was examined
before the Tribunal, has assessed the permanent disability at
80%. However, the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability
only at 60%.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017



10. He further contended that the claimant was aged 45
years and was agriculturist and mason. He was earning
₹10,000/- per month. The Tribunal, without properly
appreciating the evidence on record, has assessed the notional
income at only ₹4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that having
regard to the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization,
surgery undergone and permanent disability suffered by the
claimant, the compensation awarded under the heads of pain
and suffering, loss of income during the laid-up period and loss
of amenities is also on the lower side. Therefore, he prayed for
allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
Per contra
12. , learned counsel appearing for the
respondent – Insurance Company supported the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal. He contended that, the Tribunal
has properly appreciated both the oral and documentary
evidence and has rightly assessed the whole body disability at
60%. The claimant has not produced any documentary
evidence to establish that, he was earning ₹10,000/- per

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


month. Except producing his student identity card, no material
has been placed on record to prove either his employment or
income. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing his
monthly income notionally.

13. He further submitted that, the Tribunal has awarded
just and reasonable compensation under all the heads after
considering the nature of injuries, medical records, evidence of
the doctor and the period of treatment. Hence, the
compensation awarded does not call for any enhancement.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

14. It is not in dispute that, the claimant sustained
grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on
25.07.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-37/9096.
The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence has rightly held that, the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

15. The wound certificate, discharge summaries and the
evidence of PW-2 – Doctor disclose that, the claimant had

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


sustained grievous injuries. The doctor has assessed the
permanent physical disability at 80%. After considering the
evidence of the doctor and the medical records, the Tribunal
has assessed the disability at 60% to the whole body.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that
despite the doctor has assessed the disability at 80%of the
whole body the tribunal has not considered 80% of the
disability.

17. Learned counsel argued that, as per the disability
certificate marked as Ex.P.18 the doctor has clearly mentioned
that, the petitioner had undergone surgery for an open
proximal tibia fracture of the left leg with neurovascular injury,
resulting in an open knee joint disarticulation stump. It is
further stated that, the petitioner's left leg was amputated and
there was wasting of the left thigh muscles.

18. Further photographs of the petitioner marked as
Ex.P.20. It is contended by the petitioner that, before the
accident, he was doing agriculture as well as mason work.
Because of his leg amputed he could not do any work in future.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


Therefore, it is contended that disability percentage to be taken
as 80% as assessed by the doctor.

19. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent argued
that, tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 60% after
taking into consideration of the evidence on record. Therefore,
there is no need to interfere with the finding of the tribunal.

20. On going through the evidence on record, as the
left lower limb of the petitioner is amputed, as rightly
contended he could not do the work in the same capacity as he
was doing earlier. Looking into the evidence of the doctor,
disability certificate, and having regard to the nature of
injuries, this court is of the opinion that as assessed by the
doctor, disability has to be taken as 80% to the whole body.

21. Insofar as the monthly income is concerned, it is
contended that tribunal has taken income of the petitioner is
Rs.4,500/- per month which is on lower side. The petitioner
contended that, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
However, the petitioner has not produced any documents to
show that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


absence of no proof with regard to monthly income of the
claimant, as the accident occurred in the year 2012, the
notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority is at ₹6,500/- per month.
Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner taken at
Rs.6,500/- per month for assessment of loss of future income.
The multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is
'15'. As the deceased was self-employed and aged between 40
years , 25% has to be added towards future prospects in terms
of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 .
Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of future earning is
reassessed as under:
₹6,500/- + 25% × 12 x 15 x 80% = ₹11,70,000/-

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017


22. Thus, the compensation is reassessed as under:
Sl.
Particulars This Court
No.
1 Loss of future earning ₹11,70,000/-
2 Pain and suffering ₹2,00,000/-
3 Medical expenses ₹2,00,000/-
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant
4 ₹50,000/-
charges
5 Loss of income during laid-up period ₹40,000/-
6 Loss of amenities ₹1,00,000/-
7 Artificial limb ₹1,50,000/-
Total ₹19,10,000/-

23. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed in
part.
ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part .

(ii) The judgment and award dated 16.06.2017
passed in MVC No.28/2014 by the Senior
Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Koppal, is
hereby modified.

(iii) The claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of ₹19,10,000/- as against
₹10,43,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Consequently, the claimant is entitled to an
enhanced compensation of ₹8,66,400/-.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16983
MFA No. 103364 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020112332017



(iv) The enhanced compensation shall carry
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till realization.

(v) The insurance company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount, after
deducting the amount, if any, already
deposited or paid, together with accrued
interest, within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

(vi) No order as to costs.

Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
AC
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23