Karabasappa S/O Parameshappa @ Parameshwarappa Vs K. Honnurappa S/O Doddarangappa

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100787 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KARABASAPPA S/O PARAMESHAPPA @ PARAMESHWARAPPA BURADIKATTI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. KURUBAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADV)

¶9

AND:

¶10

K. HONNURAPPA S/O DODDARANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶11

1A. RENUKAMMA W/O K. HONNURAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ISHWAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

1B. H. AMARANATH S/O K. HONNURAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ISHWAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADV FOR R1(A &B))

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.12.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.533/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM:

¶20

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This Appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated 09.12.2004 passed in M.V.C.No.533/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Ranebennur.

¶26

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶27

On 05.04.2011, at about 10:10 PM, the petitioner was proceeding towards his shop on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/TR-1124. At the time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/K6461 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

A Notice was issued to the respondents before the Tribunal. Since, the owner of the motorcycle died, his legal representatives were brought on record. Respondent No.1(a) filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that as of the date of the accident they were not at all the owners of the offending motorcycle and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the legal representatives of the deceased owner of the offending vehicle.

¶31

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶32

The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 32 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-32. In rebuttal, Respondent No.1(b) was examined as RW-1, and marked one document as Ex.R-1.

¶33

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

vide judgment dated 09.12.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization and held respondents No.1(a) and (b)/the legal representatives of the owner of the motorcycle jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, and directed to deposit the compensation amount.

¶37

The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed this appeal.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased owner/respondent.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation under the head of loss of future income for the permanent physical disability, and loss of

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

income during laid up period. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶43

Per contra, the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the owner/ respondent submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. He also submits that the petitioner even after the accident is carrying on the business, and there is no loss of future income; thus, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding the compensation under the heads of loss of future income and loss of income during laid up period. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Reg. the Quantum:

¶49

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The petitioner, to prove that he suffered a permanent disability, has examined the doctor as PW-2 who opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 50% to the left lower limb, however, during the course of cross-examination of the petitioner as PW-1, heclearly admitted that even after the accident he is carrying on his business and there is no loss of future earning. The Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. D.C. Rajanna and another¹ , has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to a compensation for the loss of future earning capacity. Hence, I do not find any error in declining to grant the compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity for the alleged permanent disability.

¶50

1 2001 ACJ 45

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

From the perusal of evidence of doctor/PW-2,

¶54

this Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads:

¶55

Sl.No.	HEADS	AMOUNT
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.1,37,000/-
3.	Diet nourishment and attendant charges	Rs.20,000/-
4.	Conveyance charges	Rs.45,000/-
5.	Loss of income during laid up period	----
6.	Loss of future income on account of permanent physical disability	----
7.	Loss of amenities	Rs.30,000/-
8.	Future medical expenses	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,92,000/-
Less:	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.2,45,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	Rs.47,000/-

¶56

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- as against Rs.2,45,000/awarded by the Tribunal i.e., to an enhanced compensation of Rs.47,000/- . In view of the above discussion, the point regarding the quantum is answered accordingly.

¶57

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12097 MFA No. 100787 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part .

¶63

(ii) The judgment and award dated 09.12.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.533/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Ranebennur is modified.

¶64

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.47,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶65

(iv) Respondents No.1(a) and 1(b) i.e., the legal representatives of the owner of the offending vehicle are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶66

(v) The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶67

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶68

NAA

¶69

CT: BSB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Karabasappa S/O Parameshappa @ Parameshwarappa v. K. Honnurappa S/O Doddarangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karabasappa S/O Parameshappa @ Parameshwarappa v. K. Honnurappa S/O Doddarangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Basavaraja Vs M. Basavaraj S/O.M.Krishnamurthy

Rudragouda S/O Shivanand Holehadagali Vs the Executive Engineer

Balachandra Gajanan Bhat Vs Ganesh S/O Shekhar S/O Gandhinagar

The Divisional Manager, Vs Gurushiddappa Siddappa Payannavar

Baban S/O Krishna Kurade Vs Bhimsen

Siddappa S/O Yallappa Tigadi Vs Vikas Laxman Patil