- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201962 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SANTOSH KUMAR PALADI S/O PANDURANG, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE (NOW NIL), R/O: H.NO.1-10-1, NEAR POLICE STATION, SAIDAPUR, TQ: AND DIST: YADGIR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.VENKATRAJ S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF CAR BEARING REG. NO.KA-53/D-0673, R/O: H.NO.574, CHIKKA TIRUPATI, MAIN ROAD, OPP: LAXMAN SINGH’S HOUSE, SAMETHANAHALLI, ANUGONDANAHALLI, TQ: HOSKOTE, DIST: BANGALORE RURAL – 560 007. 2. THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CLAIMS DEPARTMENT, 2ND A, 2ND FLOOR, 84, RAMSON COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HOSUR, HUBLI – 560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., 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:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.07.2019 IN M.V.C. NO.95/2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T.-II AT YADGIR, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY THE ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 16.07.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yadgir (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.95/2018, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned counsel for appellant submits that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 09.12.2017, claimant was riding motorcycle bearing reg.no.KA-33/J-8229 near Bull Temple road, Bengaluru, when driver of car bearing reg.no.KA- 53/D-0673 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 against motorcycle causing accident. Despite taking treatment at Shekar Hospital, Bengaluru, claimant sustained permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. He was 30 years of age, working as Territory Manager in Super Gas and earning `5,68,000/- per annum. Due to disability sustained, he lost employment. Therefore, he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of offending car under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. On contest, wherein Insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Basava Swamy Hiremath as PW.2. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 got marked. Respondents did not led any evidence. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle, claimant had sustained injuries leading to permanent disability and lost earning capacity and was entitled for compensation as follows :- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 1. Pain and suffering `20,000/- 2. Medical expenses `1,33,738/- 3. Loss of earning during treatment period `1,000/- 4. Attendant charges `1,000/- 5. Loss of amenities `10,000/- 6. Los of future income `1,42,800/- 7. Conveyance charges `10,000/- 8. Food and nourishment `10,000/- 9. Removal of implant `20,000/- Total `3,48,538/- Rounded of to `3,49,000/- It held Insurer liable to pay same. Not satisfied, present appeal was filed. 5. It was submitted, claimant had sustained fracture of both bones of left leg which would be major fracture. However, Tribunal awarded inadequate compensation of `20,000/-. It was submitted, though Tribunal had also awarded meager compensation of `1,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Even award of only `10,000/- towards loss of amenities was inadequate and sought enhancement. It was submitted as per E.x.P.8 – Bank statement, claimant was earning `22,900/- as salary as on date of accident. He had specifically pleaded in claim petition and deposed that due to accidental injuries he has lost employment. Under such circumstances, assessment of monthly income by Tribunal notionally at `7,000/- would not be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 justified and therefore sought enhancement. It was also contended that PW.2 had assessed limb disability at 17%, assessment of loss of earning capacity at 10% therefore was on lower side and sought enhancement. 6. On other hand, Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel for Insurer opposed petition. It was submitted, there was no specific evidence led to establish employment and income. It was contended loss of monthly income assessed by Tribunal was fully justified and even compensation awarded under other heads did not call for any enhancement. It was submitted claimant had not led specific evidence to establish loss of employment on account of accidental injuries. On above grounds, sought dismissal of appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 8. From above, since claimant is in appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is – “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for ?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 Same is answered partly in affirmative, for following reasons : 9. Occurrence of accident, involving insured vehicle and claimant sustaining disability/loss of earning capacity are not in dispute. Tribunal assessed compensation and awarded same. Insurer has not preferred appeal. Insofar as monthly income, in his examination-in-chief claimant stated that he had studied MBA and working as Territory Manager in Super Gas on annual salary of `5,68,000/-. However, no material was produced to substantiate same. Ex.P.8 – bank statement for relevant period would indicate remittance of `22,900/- with description as salary. In view of specific evidence available, Tribunal would not be justified in assessing monthly income notionally. His monthly income has to be considered at `22,900/- as per Ex.P.8. PW.2 who assessed limb disability at 17% taking note of restriction of movement at 5%, mobility component at 6% and stability component at 5%, additional weightage of 6%. However, there is no explanation on said disability has to be considered cumulatively. In absence, assessment of 10% towards loss of earning capacity by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 Tribunal would appear just and proper. Thus, computation of future loss of income would be as follows :- `22,900/- x 12 x 17 x 10% = `4,67,160/-. 10. Further, normally fractures take about three months to heal. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in awarding `1,000/- towards loss of income, it would be appropriate to consider three months as lay off and award `68,700/- under said head. Claimant sustained fractures of both bones of left leg, award of `20,000/- towards pain and suffering would be inadequate, it would be appropriate to award `40,000/-. 11. Tribunal awarded `1,000/- towards attendant charges, `10,000/- each towards conveyance, food and nourishment which would appear just for inpatient treatment period of 4 days. Likewise even award of `20,000/- towards removal of implants would not call for enhancement. But, in view of restriction of movement sustained, award of `10,000/- only towards loss of amenities would be inadequate, it would be appropriate to award `30,000/- instead. Award of `1,33,738/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 towards medical expenses for reimbursement of total value for which medical bills were produced would call for any enhancement. Thus, total compensation would be :- 1. Pain and suffering `40,000/- 2. Medical expenses `1,33,738/- 3. Loss of earning during treatment period `68,700/- 4. Attendant charges `1,000/- 5. Loss of amenities `30,000/- 6. Loss of future income `4,67,160/- 7. Conveyance charges `10,000/- 8. Food and nourishment `10,000/- 9. Removal of implant `20,000/- Total ````7,80,598/- Rounded of to ````7,81,000/- 12. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 16.07.2019 passed in MVC no.95/2018 by Court of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Yadgir is modified, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of `7,81,000/- as against `3,49,000/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3242 MFA No. 201962 of 2019 ii. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before Tribunal within six weeks. iii. Considering fact that claimant is educated, it would be appropriate to direct release entire amount to claimant. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 Ct:Vk