Managing Director v. Sanganabasappa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103901 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN:

MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKRTC HUBBALLI REPRESENTED BY DEPT MANAGER MAGOOD ROAD RANEBENNUR-581115, DIST. HAVERI.

REPRESENTED BY CHEIF LAW OFFICER NWKRTC GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SANGANABASAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA BANAKAR AGE:45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. HANUMANAHALLI, TQ. RANEBENNUR-581114, DIST. HAVERI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.558/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RANEBENNUR AND ETC.,.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.15 10:24:53 +0530

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

Heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri M.K.Soudagar for appellant and learned counsel Sri Chandrashekhar Hosamani for respondent.

¶2This appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.558/2013 dated

01.04.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur (for short, 'Tribunal') questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶3The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶4Brief facts of the case are that on 07.02.2013 at about 9.00 a.m. claimant was proceeding as pedestrian by left side of the road on Hanumanahalli-Teredahalli road near Hanumanahalli village; at that time, driver of KSRTC bus

bearing Reg.No.KA-27/F-356 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant; due to which he sustained grievous injuries; immediately after the accident, he was shifted to PHC, Ranebenuur for first-aid treatment and then taken to Apoorva Hospital, Davangere for further treatment; he has taken treatment as inpatient for one month and spent ₹.1,00,000/- towards treatment and still requires ₹.50,000/- for future treatment; he was earning ₹.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture. Hence, prayed for compensation of ₹.13,40,000/- with interest at 12% per annum.

¶5On service of notice, respondent No.2-insurer appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement, wherein it denied the entire case of the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶6On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2 apart from marking

Exs.P.1 to P.13 and closed his side. On behalf of respondents, no evidence was let in.

¶7After recording evidence of both sides and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has totally awarded the compensation at ₹.1,81,100/- under different heads as follows:

¶1Towards Pain and Suffering Rs.35,000-00

¶2Medical Expenses Rs.37,100-00

¶3Diet, Nourishment, conveyance and Attendant charges Rs. 3,000-00

¶4Towards loss of income during laid-up period-Rs.12,000-00

¶5Loss of Future Income on account of permanent Physical Disability Rs.84,000-00

¶6Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life Rs.10,000-00 Total Rs.1,81,100-00

¶8Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer has filed this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous.

Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal by reducing the quantum of compensation.

¶9Learned counsel Sri Chandrashekhar Hosamani appearing for the claimant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side but as he has not preferred any appeal, the award passed by the Tribunal may be confirmed.

¶10Having heard the arguments of both sides and on verifying the appeal papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is, "whether the appellant-insurer is able to prove that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side?"

¶11Answer to the above point would be in the "negative" for the following reasons:

¶12There is no serious dispute about the nature of accident, place, date, time of accident and nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and his avocation. The only dispute is regarding the income of the injured.

¶13It is alleged that the claimant was working as agriculturist and earning ₹.20,000/- per month. However, no material is produced to show the same. When the actual income of the injured is not produced, then the guidelines issued by the KSLSA for Lok-Adalath is to be considered. Hence, the notional income of the injured is to be taken at ₹.7,000/- for the accident of the year 2013.

¶14The Tribunal has considered the disability of the claimant at 10% by examining the wound certificate, disability certificate and evidence of doctor and also nature of injuries sustained by the claimant injured even though the doctor has stated that the disability is 40%. Even such 10% is taken as disability of the claimant, then, 10% of ₹.7,000/- is ₹.7,00 X 12 X 14=₹.1,17,600/-, as the age of claimant was 43-44 years; However, the Tribunal has awarded only ₹.84,000/- under the said head.

¶15As far as nature of injuries to the claimant are concerned, there were two grievous injuries on two vital

parts of the body i.e., on right side of pelvic bone and the right wrist and 6th and 7th ribs of right chest. Hence, even the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at ₹.35,000/-by the Tribunal is on lower side. The compensation awarded towards loss of income during laid up period at ₹.12,000/-is also on lower side because the claimant ought to have taken treatment and rest at least for three months for the aforesaid injuries. Thus, the compensation that could have been awarded under this head would be ₹.21,000/-

¶16As far as other heads are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded proper compensation. Hence, if total compensation under these heads i.e., loss of income due to disability, pain and suffering and laid up period is considered, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at ₹.1,81,100/- is less than what actually the claimant is entitled to. However, as the claimant has not preferred any appeal, I have no other option but to confirm the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶17For the above reasons, I pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is dismissed. b) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

SH CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25