- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200748 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: AMARAMMA W/O SIDDAYA HIREMATH, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JALAPUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B.YADAV, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, CHAMARAJNAGAR DIVISION CHAMAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 585 801. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-11.05.2016 IN MVC NO.12/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VIII MUDDIBEHAL, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 11.05.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - VIII, Muddebihal, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MVC no.12/2012, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned counsel submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 29.10.2011, when claimant was waiting for bus at Tumkur Bus Stand, driver of KSRTC Bus no.KA.10/F-0091 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant causing accident. Due to same, she sustained grievous injuries and admitted to hospital. Despite treatment, she did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability. Therefore, she filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, against owner of bus. 4. On contest, wherein, claim petition was opposed on all grounds, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 Claimant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9, while Corporation examined its driver as RW.1. 5. On consideration, tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus by its driver, claimant sustained permanent physical disability and entitled for compensation as follows: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount 1 Medical expenditure Rs. 14,600/- 2 Expenditure towards helper/ attendant Rs. 10,000/- 3 Loss of earnings and disability Rs.2,40,660/- 4 Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 5 Incidental and Misc., expenditure to family Rs. 10,000/- 6 Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs.3,65,260/- 6. Not satisfied, claimant is in appeal. It was submitted, though claimant was 52 years old, tribunal erroneously determined it at 62 years and awarded meager compensation. Further, claimant had stated her earning was Rs.10,000/- per month as agriculturist. But, tribunal considered Rs.5,730/- per month as her income, which was on lower side. It was submitted, claimant sustained amputation of right leg below knee. Tribunal only awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 and suffering and even award of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges were on meager side. It was submitted, no compensation was awarded towards loss of income during laid-up period and towards artificial limb etc. It was further submitted, Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity at 50% which was also on lower side and sought enhancement. 7. On other hand, Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, learned counsel for KSRTC opposed appeal. It was submitted, Tribunal had taken note of all related circumstances and rightly determined compensation, leaving no scope for enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment and award. 9. From above and since claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 10. Same is answered partly in affirmative for following reasons. 11. Insofar as age, learned counsel sought to rely on treatment records. But, while giving its finding on age of claimant as 62 years, tribunal considered claimant’s response on being confronted to photocopies of ration card etc., wherein age of her youngest son was shown as 45 years in 2009, to which she feigned ignorance. Drawing adverse inference, tribunal determined age as 62 years. Said finding being based on appreciation of material on record and supported by reasons, would not call for interference. 12. Insofar as pain and suffering, treatment records would indicate amputation of right leg below knee. Though tribunal was appraised with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012 ACJ 28, wherein Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, it awarded Rs.50,000/- which would not be justified. Mere advancement of age would not mitigate pain and suffering. Claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 13. Insofar as monthly income, claimant stated she was working as agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. No material was placed to substantiate same. In absence, it was assessed notionally. Notional income for year 2011 being Rs.6,000/-, same has to be considered. Normally, in case of amputation of lower limb, six months’ period has to be taken as lay off. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period. 14. Insofar as loss of future earning, tribunal assessed it at 50% which appears just and proper, therefore computation would be: Rs.6,000 x 50% x 12 x 7 = Rs.2,52,000/- 15. Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,600/- towards medical expenses against bills produced. Same would not call for any interference. Likewise for small duration of in-patient period, tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses. Same appears just and proper. No reasons to enhance. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 16. Insofar as loss of amenities, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, in case of amputation awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Award of Rs.40,000/- by tribunal would not be justified, it is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses i.e. towards artificial limb, its periodical repair and replacement. Considering same, it would be appropriate to award sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under said head. Thus, claimant held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.7,22,600/-. 17. In view of decision of this Court in Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rajasthan vs. Smt.Laxmi and others reported in 2018 (4) AKR 808, claimant would be entitled for interest at rate of 6% instead of 9% awarded by tribunal. Consequently following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 11.05.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VIII, Muddebihal, in MVC no.12/2012 is modified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3451 MFA No. 200748 of 2017 Claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,22,600/- as against Rs.3,65,260/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per annum as awarded by Tribunal. ii. Respondent to deposit same before tribunal within a period of six weeks. iii. Other conditions about deposit and release of compensation would apply as ordered by tribunal to enhanced amount proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 Ct: VK