- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986 MFA No. 200666 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200666 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NAGNATH S/O SHIVARAJ PATNE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PLUMBER AND RUNNING FLOURMILL, NOW NILL, R/O: VIJAYNAGAR COLONY, PROPER BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SMT NEEVA M.CHIMKOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GADAGEPPA S/O MADAPPA ENAMATE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF HERO HONDA NO.KA-39/H-4874, R/O: H.NO.131, KHANDALA, TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DR.JEWALE COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI – 585 105. (POLICY NO.240685311P111905211, VALID FROM 08.01.2016 TO 07.01.2017, DATE OF ACCIDENT : 24.02.2016) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986 MFA No. 200666 of 2019 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE APPORTIONMENT IN THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.07.2018, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BASAVAKALYAN AT BASAVAKALYAN IN M.V.C.NO.692/2016 BY AWARDING THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 11.07.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Basavakalyan (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.692/2016, this appeal is filed. 2. Smt.Neeva M.Chimkod, learned counsel for appellant submitted that on 24.02.2016, claimant was walking by left side of road near Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Chowk, when rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.no.KA-39/H-4874 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant - pedestrian. In said accident, claimant sustained comminuted fracture of right tibia and fracture of lateral condoyle. Despite taking treatment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986 MFA No. 200666 of 2019 at Government Hospital, Basavakalyan and Dr.Rajendra Kanade Hospital, Omerga, he did not recovered fully and sustained disability. In claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, owner and insurer of offending motorcycle appeared and opposed petition. 3. On contest, wherein objections were filed. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW.1, got marked Ex.P1 to P14 and also examined Dr.Rajkumar Kanade as PW.2. Insurer did not lead evidence. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of insured motorcycle by its rider, claimant had sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity and was entitled for compensation as follows :- Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Medical and other incidental expenses i.e., (`1,20,000/- + `10,000/-) `1,30,000/- 2 Pain and sufferings `10,000/- 3 Future loss of earning capacity due to disability `2,91,600/- 4 Loss of income during laid up period `9,000/- 5 Loss of amenities in life `10,000/- Total `4,50,600/- and held Insurer liable to pay same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986 MFA No. 200666 of 2019 5. Not satisfied with award, claimant was in appeal. It was submitted that though claimant sustained fracture of right tibia and fracture of lateral condoyle, Tribunal awarded only `10,000/- towards pain and suffering which was on lower side. It was submitted Tribunal had awarded loss of income during laid-up period for only `9,000/- which was on lower side. Likewise, even award of `10,000/- towards loss of amenities was grossly inadequate. It was submitted PW.2 – Ortho Surgeon had assessed limb disability at 56%. However, Tribunal considered whole body disability/loss of earning capacity at 18% which required enhancement. On said ground sought for allowing appeal. 6. Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for respondent- Insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted Tribunal had considered entire material on record and awarded just compensation and there was no scope for enhancement. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986 MFA No. 200666 of 2019 8. From above and since claimant is in appeal for enhancement while Insurer has accepted award, only point that would arise for consideration is – “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for ?” 9. My answer to same is partly in affirmative, for following reasons: 10. As noted by Tribunal, claimant sustained fracture of right tibia and lateral condoyle which would be grievous fractures. Normally, this Court awards `25,000/- towards major fractures. Therefore, it would be appropriate to enhance compensation towards pain and suffering to `30,000/-. Tribunal considered income of claimant at `9,000/- and awarded loss of income towards laid-up of one month. Normally, fractures take about three months to heal. Considering same claimant would be entitled for `27,000/- towards laid-up period. Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of `1,30,000/- towards medical bills and other bills for which medical bills were produced. Same appears just and proper, no enhancement is required. Claimant was 36 years old, coolie by profession, sustained - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986 MFA No. 200666 of 2019 disability of his right lower limb. PW.2 assessed it at 56% and issued disability certificate at Ex.P.13. Though PW.2 was also examined neither in his evidence nor in Ex.P.13 - disability certificate, there is explanation about manner, nature and restriction of limb movements. He only stated about total disability. There is no assessment of loss of earning capacity. Taking note of age and occupation as well as disability, it would be appropriate to consider loss of earning capacity at 20% instead of 18% assessed by Tribunal. Thus, compensation towards loss of future income would be : `9,000 x 12 x 15 x 20% = `3,24,000/-. 11. Further award of `10,000/- only towards loss of amenities would be grossly inadequate. Same is increased to `30,000/- Thus, claimant would be entitled for total reassessed compensation as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Medical and other incidental expenses i.e., (`1,20,000/- + `10,000/-) `1,30,000/- 2 Pain and sufferings `30,000/- 3 Future loss of earning capacity due to disability `3,24,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid up period `27,000/- 5 Loss of amenities in life `30,000/- Total `5,41,000/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2986 MFA No. 200666 of 2019 12. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of `5,41,000/- as against `4,50,600/- awarded by Tribunal. iii. Needless to say that claimant is entitled for interest on said amount at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. iv. Respondent-Insurer to deposit enhanced compensation with interest before Tribunal within a period of six weeks. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 Ct:Vk