SHIVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA TENNALLI vs YALLALINGA S/O MALLIKARJUN BELAKERI AND ANR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200197 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ S/O SIDDAPPA TENNALLI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O KOLLUR VILLAGE, TQ. AFZALPUR,
NOW AT MALGATTI. TQ. CHITTAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. TABBASUM SULTANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. YALLALINGA S/O MALLIKARJUN BELAKERI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE,
BEARING NO.KA-32/EH-9490,
R/O PRAGATI COLONY,
BASAVANNA MANDIR AREA,
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. THE MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
P. B. NO.12, SANGAMESHWAR COLONY,
S. B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 22.02.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA S
D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO EXERCISE ITS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 21.04.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT CHITTAPUR IN MVC NO.1073/2019 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR
AND ALSO HOLD BOTH THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE
APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant - Shivaraj,
calling in question the legality, correctness and propriety
of the judgment and award dated 21.04.2022, passed by
the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chittapur (for brevity
‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.1073/2019.
2. The present appellant - Shivaraj was the
petitioner and the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely
Yellalinga and New India Assurance Company were
respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively before the Tribunal.
For the sake of convenience and clarity and to avoid
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
confusion, the parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.11.2018, he
was riding pillion on a motorcycle bearing Chassis
No.MD2A18AYIJD17365 along with his friend and they
were proceeding towards Afzalpur market. It is the
further case of the petitioner that when he and his friend
Javeed were proceeding at about 1:30 p.m. near Old
Khadi Machine situated on Afzalpur Main Road, the said
Javeed was riding the motorcycle by maintaining lane
discipline and at a moderate speed. At that time, the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32-EH-9490
(hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle" for the
sake of brevity) was being ridden by its rider in a rash and
negligent manner and at high speed. Due to the high
speed, the rider of the offending vehicle lost control over it
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
and dashed against the motorcycle on which the petitioner
was riding pillion.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that due to
the forceful impact of the accident, he and Javeed were
thrown to the ground, resulting in the petitioner sustaining
serious injuries. The petitioner - Shivaraj further contends
that due to the said accident, he sustained permanent
physical impairment and incurred more than Rs.3,00,000/-
towards medical treatment and other incidental expenses.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner - Shivaraj
that prior to the accident, he was aged about 23 years and
was working as a coolie, earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
It is further stated by the petitioner that due to the
accidental injuries sustained in the said accident, he is now
unable to carry on his work in the same manner as he was
doing prior to the accident. With these contentions, the
petitioner filed MVC No.1073/2019 before the Tribunal
seeking suitable compensation.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
6. Upon presentation of the petition, the same
came to be registered and notices were issued to the
respondents. The record would disclose that despite
service of notice, respondent No.1 - Yallalinga did not
appear before the Tribunal and therefore, was placed ex-
parte. On the other hand, respondent No.2 - New India
Assurance Company Limited entered appearance before
the Tribunal and filed its written statement thereby
seriously resisting the claim petition filed by the petitioner
- Shivaraj.
7. After completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed four issues for its consideration. Thereafter, the
learned Tribunal afforded opportunities to the parties to
lead their evidence. The petitioner examined Nagamma as
PW.1 and in addition examined Dr.V.K.Shettar as PW.2.
The petitioner got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12.
Per contra, the Insurance Company did not adduce any
evidence either oral or documentary.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
8. After closure of the evidence, the Tribunal
afforded reasonable opportunities to the respective parties
to advance their arguments. Upon hearing the arguments,
the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and
award dated 21.04.2022, whereby, compensation of
Rs.4,70,100/- was awarded to the petitioner together with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
petition till realization. The learned Tribunal further
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation amount within three months from the date
of the order. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award,
the appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal,
principally contending that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is inadequate.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Smt.
Tabbasum Sultana would contend that notwithstanding the
evidence produced by the petitioner to establish his
income, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of
the petitioner at Rs.10,500/- per month, which is
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
considerably lower than the income prescribed under the
notional income chart. In addition, learned counsel for the
appellant would contend that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal under non-pecuniary heads is also on the
lower side.
10. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal
has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss
of amenities and has awarded only Rs.2,400/- towards
attendant charges. Therefore, learned counsel submits
that the impugned judgment and award warrant
interference by this Court.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company Sri Manjunath Mallayyashetty would seek to
justify the award passed by the Tribunal.
12. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that she does
not dispute the assessment of disability of the limb or the
percentage of whole-body disability assessed by the doctor
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
and accepted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further
fairly submitted that her grievance is confined to the
income of the petitioner - Shivaraj assessed by the
Tribunal and the adequacy or otherwise of the
compensation awarded under non-pecuniary heads.
13. A perusal of the record would reveal that
though the petitioner - Shivaraj had contended that he
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he had not produced
any documentary evidence before the Tribunal regarding
his income. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to place
reliance on the notional income chart published by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. However, the
Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at
Rs.10,500/- per month.
14. It is necessary to note that the accident
occurred on 23.11.2018. The notional income chart
published by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
prescribes an income of Rs.11,750/- per month for the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
year 2018. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of
the petitioner at Rs.11,750/- per month.
15. The impugned judgment also shows that the
learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
future prospects. The learned counsel for the appellant
would contend that having regard to the nature of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to
have added an appropriate amount towards future
prospects. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company would contend that it is well settled
that only when the evidence on record establishes that the
injured victim has suffered 30% or more than 30% whole-
body disability, an amount can be added to the established
or assessed income of the injured towards future
prospects.
16. It is necessary to note that this Court has
independently examined the correctness of the submission
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 –
Insurance Company. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs.
1
Pranay Sethi , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the
principles governing addition towards future prospects.
However, in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court was dealing with a case arising out of the death of a
person, where, the legal representatives of the deceased
had sought compensation. Therefore, it may be argued
that the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) cannot
be extended to cases involving injuries. However, in
subsequent decisions, including the cases of Pappu Deo
2
Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and also in Sidram v. United
3
India Insurance Company Limited , the Hon'ble Apex
Court has specifically held that the concept of future
prospects is also applicable to cases where the victim has
sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Therefore, it
becomes clear that the concept of future prospects is not
1
2017 (16) SCC 680
2
(2020) 14 SCC 516
3
2023 (3) SCC 439
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
confined to cases where compensation is sought on
account of the death of a person.
17. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company would contend that in Pappu Deo
Yadav and Sidram (supra), the respective victims had
suffered more than 30% or 40% whole-body disability and
therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the said
principle. According to him, if the victims therein had
suffered permanent physical impairment of less than 30%
of the whole body, the Hon'ble Apex Court would have
clarified the position.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not
possible to draw such an inference from the judgments
delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. On the contrary, a
plain reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear
that the Hon'ble Apex Court has not indicated even
remotely that 30% permanent physical disability is a
threshold for granting an addition towards future
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
prospects. In the absence of any such stipulation, the
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no bar for considering
future prospects merely because the injured victim has
suffered less than 30% permanent physical disability. The
entitlement to future prospects cannot be made dependent
upon a fixed threshold of 30% whole-body disability.
Therefore, the percentage of permanent physical disability,
by itself, cannot be a ground to deny an addition towards
future prospects.
20. The records disclose that as on the date of the
accident, the petitioner was aged about 23 years and was
self-employed. Therefore, having regard to the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above
decisions and the facts and circumstances of the present
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
case, 40% of the assessed income of the petitioner is
required to be added towards future prospects.
21. At paragraph No.14 of this judgment, this Court
has specifically noticed and observed that the accident
occurred on 23.11.2018. The notional income chart
published by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
prescribes a notional income of Rs.11,750/- per month for
the year 2018. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of
the petitioner at Rs.11,750/- per month.
22. It is further necessary to note that the Tribunal
ought to have added 40% of the assessed income of the
petitioner towards future prospects. Accordingly, 40% of
Rs.11,750/- works out to Rs.4,700/-. By adding the said
amount to the assessed income of Rs.11,750/-, the total
works out to Rs.16,450/- per month. Therefore, the
income of the petitioner - Shivaraj is assessed at
Rs.16,450/- per month.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
23. As mentioned earlier, the learned counsel for
the petitioner fairly submitted that she does not dispute
the assessment of disability of the limb or the extent of
whole-body disability assessed by the doctor and accepted
by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further fairly
submitted that her grievance is confined to the income of
the petitioner - Shivaraj assessed by the Tribunal and the
adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded
under the non-pecuniary heads.
24. Therefore, the percentage of permanent
physical impairment assessed by the learned Tribunal is
maintained. It is necessary to note that at paragraph
No.13 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has
assessed the permanent physical disability of the
petitioner to the whole body at 15%. The same is
maintained.
25. Further, having regard to the age of the
petitioner and the fact that his income is assessed at
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
Rs.16,450/- per month, keeping the same as the basis,
the compensation payable to the petitioner towards loss of
future income works out to Rs.5,32,980/-
(Rs.16,450x12x18x15%).
26. The impugned judgment shows that the learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.31,500/- under the head of loss
of income during the laid-up period. Having regard to the
nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this
Court is of the opinion that the said amount is just and
reasonable and does not call for any interference.
27. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/-
towards transportation expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards
pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards special diet.
Having regard to the period of hospitalization of the
petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the said
amounts are fair and reasonable. Therefore, the same do
not call for any interference.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
28. The impugned judgment further shows that the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,400/- towards attendant
charges at the rate of Rs.400/- per day for six days. The
said assessment is based on the fact that the petitioner
was an inpatient for six days. It is a matter of common
experience that a person who has undergone inpatient
treatment for six days would not immediately upon
discharge from the hospital, be in a position to resume his
normal day-to-day activities. On the contrary, having
regard to the nature of the injuries, he would require a
reasonable period of rest and assistance even after
discharge from the hospital. Therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, if the compensation towards
attendant charges is enhanced from Rs.2,400/- to
Rs.20,000/-, the same would meet the ends of justice.
29. The record further shows that the petitioner
produced 29 medical bills before the Tribunal, which were
collectively marked as Ex.P10. These documents establish
that the petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs.15,722/-
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
towards medical treatment. The Tribunal, however,
awarded Rs.16,000/- towards medical expenses. The
record further shows that except for the said 29 medical
bills, the petitioner has not produced any other material,
either before the Tribunal or before this Court to establish
that he incurred any additional expenditure towards
medical treatment. Consequently, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the amount awarded by the
Tribunal towards medical expenses is just and reasonable
and the same is maintained.
30. Accordingly, the appellant/petitioner is entitled
to the following compensation:
Sl. Heads Compensation
awarded by
the Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Loss of future income Rs.3,40,200/- Rs.5,32,980/-
2. Loss of income during Rs.31,500/- Rs.31,500/-
laid up period
3. Transportation charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
4. Attendant charges Rs.2,400/- Rs.20,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs.16,000/- Rs.16,000/-
6. Special diet Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
7. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.4,70,100/- Rs.6,80,480/-
Difference amount Rs.2,10,380/-
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
31. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award passed by Tribunal in
MVC No.1073/2019 is modified to the aforesaid
extent.
iii. The appellant/petitioner shall be entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,10,380/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of claim petition till its realization.
iv. The respondent - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
within six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
v. It is made clear that the appellant/petitioner is
not entitled to interest on the enhanced
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11005
MFA No. 200197 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030068472022
compensation for the delayed period of 47 days
occurred in preferring the appeal.
Sd/-
(BRUNGESH M)
JUDGE
SRT
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22
CT:SI