SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH 
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Ninganna @ Ningappa Mallappa Makannavar - Appellant
Versus
Murtuj Hussainsab Nayakodi - Respondent
Misc. First Appeal No. 200319, 200425 of 2022
Decided On : 02-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman
For the Respondent: Preeti Patil Melkundi

Court found initial compensation amounts inadequate and enhanced awards based on claimants' permanent disabilities and losses sustained due to vehicular accident.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - Appeals filed for enhancement of compensation related to injuries sustained in a vehicular accident - Claimants argued inadequate compensation given for pain, suffering, loss of earning capacity, and disability - Tribunal's findings addressed several compensation categories, asserting damages inadequately awarded. (Paras 3-4, 6-7, 12-23)

(B) Enhancement of compensation principles - Court modified compensation for loss of pain and suffering and assessed permanent disability adequately based on medical evidence - Compensation awarded re-evaluated for specific injury circumstances to reflect true loss and suffering of claimants. (Paras 18-24)

Facts of the case:
Claimants sustained grievous injuries due to a collision caused by a negligent driver, resulting in permanent disability, leading to their appeal for higher compensation. (Paras 3-4, 5-8)

Findings of Court:
Court found initial compensation amounts inadequate, leading to enhanced awards based on claimant's disability and medical assessments. (Paras 12-24)

Issues: Key issues included inadequacy of tribunal's awards and appropriate compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of functional capacity. (Paras 12, 18-24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the tribunal's assessments did not adequately reflect the permanent disability sustained by the claimants; thus, compensation was re-evaluated to provide just remuneration for their losses. (Paras 12-24)

Result: Appeals allowed in part.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. claimants seek enhancement of compensation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. insurer's opposition to enhancement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's calculation and reasoning for mvc no. 331/2019. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. court's calculation and reasoning for mvc no. 332/2019. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. final order and decision. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

1. Though matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Challenging common judgment and award dated 02.07.2021 passed by IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV (‘tribunal’ for short) Vijayapur, in MVCs no.331/2019 and 332/2019, these appeals are filed.

3. Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman, learned counsel submitted, appeals were by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted on 04.02.2019 at about 3:30 p.m. when claimants were proceeding on motorcycle bearing no.KA-33/V-4338 on Kalakeri-Sindagi road, near Byakod Primary School, driver of Jeep bearing no.KA-28/N-5028 drove same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In accident, claimants sustained grievous injuries and despite taking treatment, they sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity. Therefore filed claim petition against owner and insurer of Jeep under Section 166 of MV Act.

4. On contest, wherein owner-insurer appeared and filed objections admitting accident and stating that Jeep was insured and policy was in force as on date of accident, but denying age, income, occupation and loss of earning capacity by claimants and also alleging violation of policy conditions by insured, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimants examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and Dr.Ashok Nayak, an orthopedic surgeon as PW3. Exhibits P.1 to P.18 were marked. Respondents did not lead evidence, but got marked copy of insurance policy with consent as Ex.R.1.

5. On consideration tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep by its driver, claimants had sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity, vehicle was insured with insurer and therefore, claimants were entitled for compensation from insurer as follows:

MVC No. 331/2019:

S. No.Heads of compensationAmount
1Injuries, pain and sufferingRs. 20,000/-
2Loss of earning capacity on account of permanent physical disabilityRs. 2,70,300/-
3Medical expensesRs. 1,27,412/-
4Food, nourishment, special diet & incidental chargesRs. 5,000/-
5Attendant and conveyance ChargesRs. 4,000/-
6Loss of amenitiesRs. 5,000/-
7Loss of income during laid up periodRs. 26,500/-
TOTALRs. 4,58,212/-

MVC No. 332/2019:

S. No.Heads of compensationAmount
1Injuries, pain and sufferingRs. 20,000/-
2Loss of earning capacity on account of permanent physical disabilityRs. 2,16,240/-
3Medical expensesRs. 82,966/-
4Food, nourishment, special diet & incidental chargesRs. 5,000/-
5Attendant and conveyance chargesRs. 1,500/-
6Loss of amenitiesRs. 5,000/-
7Loss of income during laid up periodRs. 26,500/-
TOTALRs. 3,57,206/-

6. Not satisfied with compensation, claimants were in appeal.

7. Insofar as MVC no.331/2019 is concerned, it was submitted, though claimant sustained compound fracture of neck and upper 1/3rd of femur, fracture of right head of tibia and upper 1/3 of fibula, tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering.

8. It was submitted, PW3-Dr.Ashok Nayak examined claimant and assessed limb disability of 50-55%. However, tribunal considered functional disability at 10% which was on lower side. Though, claimant had taken inpatient treatment for 8 days, tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards food, nourishment and other incidental charges and Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance and attendant charges which was on lower side. Even award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.26,500/- towards loss of income during laid-up period were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top