KESHAVA KOTIAN vs MOHAMMED SABIR ALI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8577 OF 2013 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

KESHAVA KOTIAN
S/O KANTHAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SHIVANAGAR, HEJAMADI POST
HEJAMADI, UDUPI TALUK & DIST. - 576 101.
…APPELLANT






(BY SRI. VIGNESH K.V, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MOHAMMED SABIR ALI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O SALAMATHULLA
R/O RAHAMATH GARDEN
H NO. 5-6-396, OPP PVS KALAKUNJA
KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE TQ - 575 001.

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEAR MANDAVI MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
MANGALORE - 575 002.
…RESPONDENTS





Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
MAYAPPA
MAVARAKAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI. DEEPU G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.10.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 937/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE MEMBER,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013


MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 24.08.2012
passed by District Judge & Member, MACT, Udupi ( Tribunal ),
in M.V.C.no.937/2009, this appeal is filed.

2. Sri Vignesh K.V., learned counsel appearing for Sri
Nataraja Ballal, Advocate for appellant submitted that appeal
was by claimant for enhancement of compensation.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, at 7:45
p.m., on 22.04.2009 when claimant was travelling in auto-
rickshaw no.KA-19/A-1193 towards Hejmadi, driver of car
no.KA-19/Z-3222 drove it in rash and negligent manner and it
dashed against auto causing accident. Despite taking treatment
at A.J. Hospital, Mangalore, for 23 days, claimant did not
recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Claiming
compensation for same, he filed claim petition against owner

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013


and insurer under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV
Act ).

4. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear and
was placed ex parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition on all
grounds. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following issues:

i. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained
grievous injuries in the accident that took place on
22.04.2009 at about 7.45 p.m. near Hejmadi Check
Post, N.H.17, Hejmadi village while he was
travelling in an autorickshaw bearing no.KA-19/A-
1193 from Mangalore side towards Hejmadi side
and the said autorickshaw was about to cross the
road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of a Swift car bearing no.KA-19/Z-3222 by its
driver from Udupi towards Mangalore side?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?
If so, from whom and to what extent?

iii. What order?

5. During trial, claimant examined himself and
Dr.Jayaprakash K. as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P12 to
17. Respondents did not lead evidence.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013



6. On consideration, tribunal held accident had
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of autorickshaw by
its driver claimant had sustained injuries and entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,50,701/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
owner/insurer of auto. Dis-satisfied with quantum, claimant
was in appeal.

7. It was submitted that as on date of accident,
claimant was 64 years of age running a grocery shop and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He sustained head injury and
PW.2 Neuro Surgeon, examined by him, stated that due to
injuries a brain operation was conducted and thereafter
claimant regained consciousness.

8. It was submitted that due to accidental injuries,
claimant was prone to epileptic fits, and therefore, sustained
loss of earning capacity. Therefore, compensation of
Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,04.101/- towards
medical expenses, Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance, Rs.18,000/-
towards loss of income during laid-up period and Rs.2,300/-
each towards nutritious food and attendant's charges etc., was
on lower side and sought for enhancement. Refusal to award

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013


compensation towards future loss of income and loss of
amenities was unsustainable and sought for awarding same. On
above ground, sought for allowing appeal.

9. On other hand, Sri Deepu G., learned counsel
appearing for Sri K.N.Srinivasa, Advocate for respondent no.2-
insurer would oppose appeal.

10. It was submitted that based on material on record,
tribunal had awarded just compensation and same did not call
for any enhancement.

11. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award and record.

12. From above, following point would arise for
consideration:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?"

13. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following:
REASONS

14. There is no dispute about occurrence of accident
due to involvement of insured vehicle and claimant being

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013


entitled for compensation. As on date of accident, claimant was
54 years of age running a grocery shop and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. However, except producing trade
license as per Ex.P16, there was no material to establish
income. In absence, tribunal assessed it notionally at
Rs.6,000/-. To establish permanent physical disability and loss
of earning capacity, claimant relied on wound certificate,
medical bills, discharge summary and receipts marked as
Exs.P-12, 14, 15 and 17 respectively. He has also relied on
deposition of PW.2. Perusal of said material would indicate that
claimant had sustained head injury. Due to right frontal
contusion, claimant had lost consciousness and same was
required surgical intervention. PW.2 stated that claimant was
inpatient for 23 days. Though it was contended that claimant
had sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning
capacity in cross-examination of PW2, there is specific
admission elicited that accidental injuries had healed and there
was no disability caused to claimant in light of his occupation as
grocery store owner.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013



15. In view of above material, refusal by tribunal to
award compensation towards future loss of income and loss of
amenities would appear justified. However, considering fact
that claimant had sustained head injury and surgical
intervention was required to remove bone splinters by skull
operation, award of only Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering would not be justified. Considering facts and
circumstances, it is found fit to enhance same to Rs.40,000/-.
Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,04,101/- against bills produced
and in full reimbursement thereof leaving no scope for
enhancement. Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,000/- towards
conveyance, Rs.2,300/- each towards nutritious food and
attendant's charges. Considering inpatient treatment for 23
days, said award would not be adequate and is found
appropriate to enhance it to Rs.25,000/- . Normally fractures
take about three months to heal. Therefore award of
Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period,
would be justified. In view of failure to establish loss of earning
capacity/permanent physical disability, refusal to award

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58556
MFA No. 8577 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010409912013


compensation towards loss of amenities would also be justified.
Thus, there is enhancement of compensation by Rs.36,400/- .

16. Consequently, following -
ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part , judgment and award dated
24.08.2012 passed by District Judge & Member, MACT,
Udupi, in M.V.C.no.937/2009 is modified. Claimant is
held entitled for additional compensation of
Rs.36,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from
date of claim petition till deposit.

ii. Respondent - insurer is liable to pay same and is
directed to deposit enhanced compensation before
tribunal within six weeks.

iii. On deposit, entire enhanced compensation along with
interest is ordered to be released in favour of claimant
by electronic means.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE

HNM