BASAVARAJ VANDELAPPA UPPAR, v. VITHAL KRISHNA KALOJI,
MFA/101135/2016 · 2025-11-10
Chillakur Sumalatha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 84039 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 84039 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15306 MFA No. 101135 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101135 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJ DANDELAPPA UPPAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE NOW NIL, R/O: PRESENTLY AT ITC COLONY, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
VITHAL KRISHNA KALOJI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.1229, MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI, TAL; HALIYAL [UTTAR KANNADA]
2.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I FLOOR, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH V. BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
M/S ANUSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2015 AND SAME CAME CORRECTED ON 27/02/2016 IN MVC.NO.2790/2012 PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BELAGAVI IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,55,800/- AND INTEREST AT RATE OF 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND MAY BE KINDLY
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15306 MFA No. 101135 of 2016
MODIFIED BY ENHANCING AS PRAYED FOR WITH 18% INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Sri Yash who represented Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel on record for the appellant was heard on 06.11.2025. Heard Ms. Anusha, who appears through Video Conference and represents Sri S.K.Kayakamath learned counsel for respondent No.2. No representation for respondent No.1 on call.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Belagavi in MVC 2790 of 2012 dated 28.10.2015. This is a claimant's appeal.
3. The appellant projecting that he sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2012 filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15306 MFA No. 101135 of 2016
in total. The tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.4,55,800/- as compensation. With a version that he is entitled to a higher sum the present appeal is filed.
4. The submission that was made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the appellant as on the date of accident and thereby awarded meager sum as compensation both under the heads ‘loss of future earnings’ and ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal failed to award any compensation for ‘loss of amenities in life’. Learned counsel also stated that the compensation granted under all heads is on lower side.
5. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month, but for the relevant period the Courts are taking the notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month and therefore the same may be considered.
Learned counsel also states that there are no other grounds to interfere with the findings given by the tribunal.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15306 MFA No. 101135 of 2016
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained four grievous injuries due to the road traffic accident which includes fracture to left femur. The evidence of PW2 is that the appellant is suffering with permanent disability in relation to left lower limb to an extent of 60%. The tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 20% which needs no interference. Also the tribunal has rightly assessed the multiplier to be applied that is ‘18’. Thus having taken the notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month, the multiplier to be applied as ‘18’ and the disability in respect of whole body as 20%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is Rs.2,80,800/- (Rs.6,500x12x18x20%).
7. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained that is four grievous injuries, this Court is of the view that the appellant could have taken bed rest at least for a period of 5 months. Thus ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ comes to Rs.32,500/- (Rs.6,500x5). Also this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards ‘loss
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15306 MFA No. 101135 of 2016
of amenities in life’. Further as rightly pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant the compensation that is granted by the tribunal under all other head requires marginal enhancement. Having considered the totality of evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation under following heads: Heads Amount in Rs. Towards pain and suffering 40,000.00 Towards food, extra-nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 15,000.00 Medical expenses 1,33,595.00 Loss of future earnings 2,80,800.00 Loss of income during laid up period 32,500.00 Loss of amenities in life 15,000.00 Future medical expenses 15,000.00 Total 5,31,895.00
8. Thus the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,31,895/- as compensation. Therefore the appeal is
disposed of with the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Belagavi through
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15306 MFA No. 101135 of 2016
orders in MVC 2790 of 2012 dated 28.10.2015 is enhanced from Rs.4,55,800/- to Rs.5,31,895/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment. (v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14