- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201990 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHIVAPRAKASH S/O REVAPPA SARADAGI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O PLOT NO.9, SY. NO.10, NEAR ESWAR TEMPLE, PRASHANT NAGAR-A, KALABURAGI, NOW READING AT ARANAKAL VILLAGE, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHARANABASAPPA S/O CHANDRASEKAR RAJAPUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF HERO-HONDA PASSION PLUS NO.KA-32/X-4250, R/O OPP. MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, TANDUR ROAD, CHANDPUR POST, TQ. CHINCHOLLI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1-101/A/TF/2, 3RD FLOOR, KISHAN KRUPA, OPP. KANNADA BHAVAN, SVP CHOWK, KALABURAGI-585 102. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 07.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17-11-2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.534/2020 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT CHITTAPUR AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.7,10,600/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this matter is taken for final disposal even though it is slated for admission. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.534 of 2020, the petitioner is before this court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The factual aspect of the case is that on 01.03.2020, at about 7.30 pm, the petitioner, while riding his Hero Honda bike bearing No.KA-32-EQ-9316, was hit by another motorcycle bearing No.KA-32-X-4250, owned - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The petitioner suffered fracture of the right humerus and he was admitted to Basaveshwara Hospital, Kalaburagi, where he underwent surgeries. The petitioner contends that he was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident, earning his livelihood by way of agricultural work as well as by practicing as an advocate. Claiming that he was earning Rs.35,000/- per month, he sought adequate compensation before the Tribunal. 4. The petition was opposed by the respondent No.1 and 2 contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself. Inter alia, the respondent No.2 also contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by respondent No.1 and urged to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1, Ex.P1 to 19 were marked - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 in evidence. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. 6. After hearing the arguments by both the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,10,600/- under following heads. Sl. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal 1. Pain and suffering Rs.35,000/- 2. Loss of future income Rs.5,76,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.31,000/- 4. Income during treatment Rs.45,000/- 5. Food and nourishment charges Rs.10,000/- 6. Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- 7. Attendant charges Rs.3,600/- Total Rs.7,10,600/- 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner submit that the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the petitioner in a proper way. The petitioner was aged 31 years at the time of the accident, earning his livelihood by practicing as an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 advocate as well as looking after his agricultural lands. It is contended that the petitioner was educated and therefore, the Tribunal failed to assess the income in a proper way and it has considered the income only at Rs.15,000/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that the disability assessed at 20% is also incorrect since the fracture was to the right humerus, which is the dominant hand of the petitioner. He also points out that the compensation under the head of loss of amenities and the future medical expenses are not considered by the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and no enhancement is required and as such the appeal is bereft of any merits. He contends that the petitioner has not produced any income tax returns to establish his income of Rs.35,000/- per month. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 10. A perusal of the available records would establish that the petitioner had enrolled himself as an advocate in the year 2011. Apart from that he also had agricultural lands as evidenced by Ex.P15. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner having enrolled himself as an advocate in the year 2011, has suffered an accident on 01.03.2020. In other words, he had put in a practice of about 9 years at the time of the accident. Even if his income by profession was moderate, the combined income from agriculture as well as the profession should have been assessed by the Tribunal. It is worth to note that a person who had enrolled himself in the year 2011 and was practicing as an advocate suffers an injury at the age of 30 years. The injury is obviously to the dominant hand of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he was enrolled as an advocate in the year 2011 as evidenced by Ex.P17 and 18, definitely the income was above the income of any skilled labourer. Considering this aspect, the income of the petitioner has to be assessed. Though, there is some force in the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner should have produced income tax returns, it needs to be noted that the income tax returns need not be filed until a person has an income of at least Rs.3,00,000/- per annum, excluding the agricultural income. In that view of the matter, the monthly income of the petitioner is assessed by this Court at Rs.20,000/-. 11. So far as the disability is concerned, PW2 states that there is a functional disability of 40%. The Tribunal assess the functional disability at 20% and has awarded the compensation. The agricultural work as well as a work of legal professional depends on the dominant use of the right arm. Therefore, the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 20% is proper and need not be interfered with. 12. Therefore, the loss of income on account of the disability is calculated as Rs.20,000 x 12 x 20% x 16 = Rs.7,68,000/- by holding the multiplier at 16 for the age of 31 years. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 13. The petitioner was inpatient for a period of 9 days from 01.03.2020 to 09.03.2020 and thereafter, from 28.09.2021 to 02.10.2021. In both these discharge summaries which are produced at the Ex.P9 and 20, the fact that the implants are in situ is noticed. The nature of the injuries clearly indicates that the fracture was to the right humerus. Despite treatment, certain discomfort has remained, which is indicated by the second course of admission in the year 2021. Therefore, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. 14. Having considered the income of the petitioner at Rs.20,000/- per month, the loss of income during laid- up period is calculated as Rs.20,000 x 3 = Rs.60,000/-. 15. The petitioner was inpatient for a period of 9 + 5 days. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of attendant charges, conveyance, food nourishment etc. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 16. The Tribunal though awards a sum of Rs.31,000/- towards medical expenses, does not take into consideration the deposition of PW2 who states that there is a need for removal of the implant and a sum of Rs.50,000/- is required for the same. The fact that the implants are in situ is evidenced by the discharge summary at Ex.P20. Therefore, it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards future medical expenses which would not carry any interest. 17. The compensation under the head of pain and suffering and medical expenses do not require any enhancement. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,28,000/-. Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.35,000/- 2. Loss of future income Rs.7,68,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.31,000/- 4. Income during treatment Rs.60,000/- 5. Food and nourishment charges, Transportation charges, attendant charges Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.9,19,000/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,10,600/- Total enhancement Rs.2,08,400/- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2419 MFA No. 201990 of 2022 18. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Therefore, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,08,400/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. (out of which a sum of Rs.35,000/- shall not carry any interest) from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT: AK