Karnataka High Court
Devaraj S/O Baganna Chawan vs Bayer Cropscience Limited And Anr on 22 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117
MFA No. 200414 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200414 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DEVARAJ
S/O BAGANNA CHAWAN,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC:. BUSINESS AND
AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O: C/O: GANESH NAIK, PLOT NO.71,
SADASHIVA NAGAR,
NEAR OLD P AND T COLONY,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI,
DISTRICT: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHANTANU KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 1. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LIMITED,
COURT OF NO.12, SHIRUR PARK, MAIN ROAD,
KARNATAKA VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI - 580 020.
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO. KA-25/1830).
2. THE POLICY SERVICING OFFICE,
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.273, MY BHAVAN,
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
15TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR,
20TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 079,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
ASIAN PLAZA, S.V.P. CIRCLE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117
MFA No. 200414 of 2021
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
POLICY NO.P0015200028/4101/106672
VALID FROM 06.07.2014 TO 05.07.2015.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O/DATED 01.04.2021, NOTICE TO R1
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
KALABURAGI AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.875/2015 DATED
14.02.2018 BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND BE PLEASED
TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS
PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS MFA IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 14.02.2018 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC no.875/2015, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Shantanu Kumar, learned counsel submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 11.12.2014, at about 7:00 p.m., when -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117 MFA No. 200414 of 2021 HC-KAR claimant was inmate of Auto no.KA-33/9068 proceeding towards Shahapur, driver of Jeep no.KA-25/Z-1830 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Auto, causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital at Shahapur and later to Kamareddy Hospital, Kalaburagi. Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and insurer of offending vehicle.
3. On service of notice, owner did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Respondent no.2-insurer of offending vehicle opposed claim petition denying age, occupation, income, loss of earning capacity and also alleged that driver of insured vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence.
4. Based on same, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.Veeresh as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.16. Insurer did not lead any evidence.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117 MFA No. 200414 of 2021 HC-KAR
5. On consideration, tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver and claimant had sustained physical disability and loss of earning capacity and was entitled for compensation as under:
Sl.No. Different Heads Compensation Amount 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.28,975 /- 3 Loss of future income Rs.1,15,200/- 4 Attendant charges, food and Rs.5,000/-
conveyance 5 Loss of amenities and nutrition Rs.10,000/-
food 6 Loss of income during the period Rs.18,000/-
of treatment Total Rs.2,07,175/-
Rounded off Rs.2,07,200/-
Dissatisfied with award, claimant was in appeal.
6. It was submitted, claimant had sustained injury to left frontal parietal region and fracture of left pubic rami. Despite same, tribunal awarded meager compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'. It was submitted, claimant was aged 32 years and earning Rs.3,60,000/- p.a. from business and agriculture. But, tribunal erred in assessing his income at Rs.6,000/- p.m., which was on lower side. It was -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117 MFA No. 200414 of 2021 HC-KAR submitted, Ex.P.8-disability certificate showed disability caused to claimant at 15%. Therefore, award of only Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' was on lower side. Likewise, even award of compensation towards 'loss of income during laid up period' was meager. On above grounds, sought for enhancement.
7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for Insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, taking note of facts and circumstances of case into consideration, Tribunal had assessed just compensation under each head, leaving no scope for enhancement.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records.
9. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"
10. Insofar as monthly income, though claimant stated, he was doing business and agriculture and earning Rs.3,60,000/- p.a., he failed to substantiate same. In absence -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117 MFA No. 200414 of 2021 HC-KAR of specific proof of income, Tribunal assessed it at Rs.6,000/- per month notionally. But notional income for year 2014 is Rs.7,500/- as adopted by KSLSA for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Therefore, same has to be considered as monthly income. Tribunal determined age of claimant as 32 years and assessed physical disability at 10% by referring to assessment of permanent physical disability at 15% by PW.2. Thus, compensation towards 'loss of future income' would be as follows:
(Rs.7,500 x 12 x 16) x 10% = Rs.1,44,000/-
11. Tribunal awarded Rs.28,975/- towards medical expenses against bills produced. Since there is complete reimbursement, there is no scope for enhancement.
12. Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards attendant and other incidental expenses for in-patient period of 5 days. Same would be justified. Hence, no enhancement.
13. When claimant has sustained permanent physical disability assessed by PW.2 at 15%, tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'. As it is inadequate, it would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs.25,000/-. Normally, -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117 MFA No. 200414 of 2021 HC-KAR fractures take three months to heal. Considering monthly income of claimant at Rs.7,500/-, claimant would be entitled for Rs.22,500/- (Rs.7,500 x 3) towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'.
14. Though learned counsel for claimant sought enhancement towards 'pain and suffering', Ex.P5 - wound certificate and Ex.P8 - disability certificate and treatment records would indicate claimant sustained fracture of left pubic rami. Normally, for one major fracture, this Court awards Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, compensation awarded by tribunal for 'pain and sufferings' at Rs.30,000/- is justified. No enhancement. Thus, compensation is recomputed as under:
Sl.No. Different Heads Compensation Amount 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.28,975 /- 3 Loss of future income Rs.1,44,000/- 4 Attendant charges, food and Rs.5,000/-
conveyance 5 Loss of amenities and nutrition Rs.25,000/-
food 6 Loss of income during the period Rs.22,500/-
of treatment Total Rs.2,55,475/-
Rounded off Rs.2,55,500/-
15. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative. Consequently, following: -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4117 MFA No. 200414 of 2021 HC-KAR ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part;
ii. Judgment and award dated 14.02.2018 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC no.875/2015 is modified.
iii. Claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,55,500/- as against Rs.2,07,200/-
awarded by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization excluding interest for period of 1035 days delay in filing this appeal.
iv. Insurer is held liable to pay same and is directed to deposit same with interest before Tribunal within six weeks.
v. On deposit, entire enhanced compensation shall be released to claimant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ,AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59