- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 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.201310 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200012 OF 2023 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.201310/2018: BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD., D.NO.118/17, NIRMAL BUILDING, OPP: COSMOS POLITIAN CLUB, DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAGRAJ S/O BASANNA @ BASAPPA HADPAD, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BARBER, R/O INDIRA NAGAR, SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR-585 201. 2. MAHANTESH GOUDA S/O MALLANGOUDA SUBEDAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SAGAR (B), TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR-585 201. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 (BY SRI. S.S. SAJJANSHETTY, ADV. FOR R1; V/O DTD. 05.12.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2018, PASSED THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SHAHAPUR IN MVC NO.225/2014. IN MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.200012/2023: BETWEEN: NAGARAJ S/O BASANNA @ BASAPPA HADPAD, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BARBAR/HAIR SOLOON, NOW HAIR CUTTING, R/O INDIRANAGAR SHAHAPUR, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIR. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. S.S. SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHANT GOUDA S/O MALLANNAGOUDA SUBEDAR, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SAGAR (B) VILLAGE, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIR-585 202. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLAMANDAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.NO.118/17, NIRMA BUILDING, OPP: COSMO POLIAN CLUB, DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY-583 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 14.02.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 THIS MFA CROB. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 41 RULE 22 R/W SEC 151 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 225/2014 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT SHAHAPUR DIST. YADGIR, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE AWARD AND ENHANCE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALONG WITH INTEREST BY DISMISSING THE MFA NO. 201310/2018 AS DEVOID OF MERITS, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/INSURER. THIS APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.225/2014 dated 02.04.2018 by learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Shahapur. The insurance company is before this Court in this appeal. The petitioner is also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 before this Court in MFA Crob-200012/2023, stating that the compensation awarded is not adequate. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 21.05.2013, when the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-37-L/8930, a Tractor bearing No.KA-33-T- 9755 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2-insurance company came and collided with the petitioner resulting in he sustaining injuries. He was taken to Basaveshwara Hospital, Gulbarga and was inpatient there and underwent surgery. Claiming that the petitioner was aged about 22 years and was a barber by profession, sought compensation alleging that there is functional disability to him. 3. The petition was resisted by the respondent No.2-insurance company alone. It denied the contentions of the petitioner and stated that the accident was not due to the negligence of the Tractor driver. It also disputed the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 alleged that the respondent No.1 owner of the Tractor had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 4. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and the Ex.P1 to 11 were marked in evidence. The official of the respondent No.2 examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to 3 were marked in evidence. 5. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,39,360/- under following heads: Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Medical expenses Rs.40,322/- Conveyance expenses Rs.10,000/- Loss of income due to disability Rs.4,40,640/- Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Loss of income during Laid up period Rs.4,200/- Attendant charges Rs.4,200/- Total Rs.5,39,362/- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 insurance company as well as the petitioner are before this Court in these appeal and the Cross-objections. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company would submit that the petitioner had sustained fracture of the mandible and the disability assessed by PW2 at 45% does not in any way affect the profession and the income from such profession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Tribunal instead of considering the functional disability, has deducted only ¼ of the disability and held the functional disability at 34%, which is not sustainable in law. There is no logic in the Tribunal saying that ¼ of the disability has to be deducted from what is stated by PW2. Therefore, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and it is on the higher side. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is the Cross objector, states that the assessment of the disability by the Tribunal is proper and correct and the notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submit that all other compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore there should be a total reassessment of the compensation. 8. The fact that there was an accident involving the Tractor owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 is not in dispute. Therefore, the liability on the respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the compensation cannot be disputed. A perusal of the wound certificate at Ex.P4 would show that he had suffered fracture of the right side of the mandible and subcondylar and fracture on the mandible on the left side The discharge summery produced at Ex.P8 would show that the petitioner was unconscious when he was brought to the hospital. He was admitted and it was found that there - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 was cut and lacerated wound on the lower side of the chin. There was tenderness and swelling over the limb and it was found that there was fracture of mandible and it was treated with ORIF under general anesthesia. He was in patient from 22.05.2013 to 04.06.02013. 9. The testimony of PW.2 coupled with the disability certificate issued at Ex.P6 would show that there is deformed look of the face, he is unable to open the mouth, unable to masticate the food on the right side and he is unable to talk properly and loudly. It seems he also observed that there is pain in the right side of the lower jaw, there is headache and giddiness and a sense of weakness. It is pertinent to note that fracture of the mandible on the left side as well on the right side can it easily be assessed to have some effect on the masticating the food. But there being no such head injuries, the giddiness, sense of weakness etc. stated by PW.2 appears to be unconnected with the accidental injuries suffered by the petitioner. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 10. It is also worth to note that PW.2 is not a treated doctor and therefore, his assessment of disability at 45% to the whole body appears to be an exaggerated one. Even if we accept that the disability is 45%, it has to be to the concerned limb but not to the whole body. It is evident that the petitioner being a barber has nothing to do with the fracture of the mandible, resulting in any disability which affects his functionality. It is pertinent to note that the fracture of the mandible is no way connected to the functionality of the petitioner as a Barber. At the most, it can only cause some discomfort to him. In that view of the matter, the assessment of the disability by the Tribunal at 34% appears to be without any logic. In the considered view of this Court, disability is considered at 15%, which is 1/3rd of the one stated by PW.2. 11. The disability being minimal, there is no reason to add the future prospects as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 12. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.7,000/- for the year 2013. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the ‘loss of income on account of disability’ is considered at Rs.7,000/- X 12 X 18 X 15%, that equals to Rs.2,26,800/-. As a consequence, the ‘loss of income during Laid-up period’ is calculated for a period of three months at Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000/- X 3). 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 14. The compensation under the head of ‘nutritious food, attendant charges. etc.’ is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- in view of the fact that he was - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 inpatient for a period of 14 days. A sum of Rs.4,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is included under the head of ‘nutritious food and attendant charges’. 15. The compensation under the head of ‘conveyance expenses, medical expenses’ do not require any enhancement. 16. The PW.2 has stated that there is a facial deformity. The Tribunal has not ascertained whether there is any facial deformity by referring to any photograph. It also did not notice any such deformity which was stated by PW.2. Therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be an adequate compensation under the head of ‘facial deformity’ as stated by PW.2. 17. The petitioner is also entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of amenities in life’ instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,18,122/- under the following heads: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal (In Rs.) Award by this Court (In Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 20,000/- 40,000/- 2 Medical expenses 40,322/- 40,322/- 3 Conveyance expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- 4 Loss of income due to disability 4,40,640/- 2,26,800/- 5 Food and nourishment 10,000/- 15,000/- 6 Loss of amenities 10,000/- 40,000/- 7 Loss of income during Laid up period 4,200/- 21,000/- 8 Attendant charges 4,200/- - 9 Facial deformity - 25,000/- Total 5,39,360/- 4,18,122/- 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed-in-part. The Cross- Objection filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following: ORDER i) MFA.No.201310/2018 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed-in-part. ii) MFA.Crob.No.200012/2023 filed by the petitioner is dismissed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2437 MFA No. 201310 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200012 of 2023 iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. iv) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,18,122/- instead of Rs.5,39,360/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal. v) The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal. vi) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding the deposit remain unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP,NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT: AK