Shri Rajashekhar S/O Bashetteppa Davaleshwar Vs Channayya S/O Kallayya Pujar

SHRI. RAJASHEKHAR S/O. BASHETTEPPA DAVALESHWAR, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL), R/O. P.B. ROAD, MALAPRABHA NAGAR, DHARWAD, PIN-580002, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. HANAMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

CHANNAYYA S/O. KALLAYYA PUJAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HIREHONNIHALLI, PIN-580 114, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶15

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR NARAYANKAR Date: 2026.02.18 10:45:01 +0530

¶16

THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, E-8, EPIP, SITAPUR, INDUSTRIAL AREA,

¶17

JAIPUR, PIN-302022, DIST. JAIPUR, STATE. RAJASTAN.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, IN MVC NO.816/2019 DATED 17.11.2023 AND FIX LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2133 MFA No. 105767 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.816/2019 dated 17.11.2023 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad, the appellant/claimant is before this Court.

¶28

The Tribunal had awarded the compensation as per the table given below:

¶29

SL. No.	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Pain and suffering	:	Rs.	40,000/-
2.	Attendant charges, special food, nourishment & loss of amenities etc.	:	Rs.	30,000/-
3.	Medical bills and hospital expenses	:	Rs.	1,11,525/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	:	Rs.	39,750/-
5.	Future loss of income	:	Rs.	1,71,720/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,92,995/-

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2133 MFA No. 105767 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal had applied the wrong multiplier and granted the compensation. It is submitted that liability is fixed on the owner of the vehicle and compensation granted under all the heads needs to be enhanced.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that on all counts, the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and no enhancement is called for. It is submitted that the claimant is not entitled for enhancement and the principal of pay and recover will not apply.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. First coming to the liability, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh And Others¹ , still the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶35

1 (2004) 3 SCC 297

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2133 MFA No. 105767 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal had rightly granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. Towards attendant charges, though the claimant was admitted in the hospital for 15 days, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. This Court is granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, special food, nourishment . The Tribunal had righty granted an amount of Rs.1,11,525/- towards medical bills and hospital expenses and an amount of Rs.39,750/- towards loss of income during laid up period and no interference is called for. Towards loss of future

¶40

income , this Court is granting an amount of Rs.2,48,040/- (Rs.13,250x12x13x12/100). This Court is granting an amount of

¶41

Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities .

¶42

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and Another² , the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses .

¶43

The claimant is therefore, entitled for compensation under the following heads:

¶44

2 (2014) 11 SCC 178

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2133 MFA No. 105767 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

SL. No.	Heads		Co A	mpensation warded by Tribunal	Compensation Awarded by this Court
1.	Pain and suffering	:	Rs.	40,000/-	40,000/-
2.	Attendant charges, special food, nourishment	:	Rs.	30,000/-	15,000/-
3.	Loss of amenities	:	Rs.	00/-	30,000/-
3.	Medical bills and hospital expenses	:	Rs.	1,11,525/-	1,11,525/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	:	Rs.	39,750/-	39,750/-
5.	Future loss of income	:	Rs.	1,71,720/-	2,48,040/-
6.	Legal Expenses	:	Rs.	00/-	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,92,995/-	4,94,315/-

¶48

Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.4,94,315/- .

¶49

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.3,92,995/- to Rs.4,94,315/- and the Insurance company shall pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2133 MFA No. 105767 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶54

ii. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and shall recover the same from respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

¶55

iii. The Registry is directed to send the certified copy of the order passed by this Court to the Tribunal forthwith without any delay.

¶56

iv. No costs.

¶57

v. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶59

MEG CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 122

Shri Rajashekhar S/O Bashetteppa Davaleshwar v. Channayya S/O Kallayya Pujar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajashekhar S/O Bashetteppa Davaleshwar v. Channayya S/O Kallayya Pujar

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

Legal Manager, Vs Mohammad Yakub

Ensure Developers Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Malatesh Gudda Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Janakibai W/O Parashuram Palkar, Vs Smt Jijabai Claim to Be W/O Parashuram Palkar

Jeevan S/O. Nagaraj Mattihalli Vs Nagaraj Alias Nagaraj S/O Basappa Ningavvanavar

Sri Khadarhussain Goususab Mulla Vs City Munciapal Council Mundaragi