- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.201241 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KAPIL DHWAJA S/O MAHADEV, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: RUNNING EDUCATION INSTITUTE AS PRESIDENT PRAKRUTHI SCHOOL, R/O: AMEDKAR NAGAR, SHARAN SIRASAGI, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARADA PATIL KULGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJESH S/O SHIVARAYA KAMAKNOOR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TIPPER R/O: COWDESHWAR COLONY, NEAR LALGERI KALABURAGI-585102. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., N.G. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, KALABURAGI-585101. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 10.03.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH; SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MVC ACT-1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN MVC.NO.672/2016 DATED 17.09.2018. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the appellant - petitioner for enhancement of compensation as against the judgment and award passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC.No.672/2016 dated 17.09.2018. 02. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 03. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that the petitioner has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act for claiming compensation at Rs.63,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on 31.03.2013 at about 10.10 a.m. It is contended by him that on the said date, when he was proceeding in a Tempo Trax, towards the Sharana Sirasagi to go to his institute, at that time, the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-32-A-7941 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tempo Trax. Due to which, he has sustained grievous injuries and he was treated as inpatient. He has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment. Due to the accident, he is suffering disability and on various heads he has claimed the compensation. 04. The respondent No.2 – insurance company appeared before the Tribunal through its counsel and filed the written statement denying the rash and negligent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 driving of the driver of the lorry and denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It has also taken the ground available under Section 170 of M.V. Act. Hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petition. 05. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues :- I. Whether the petitioner proves that on 31.01.2013 at about 10.10 a.m. near Lal Hanuman Temple Gulbarga – Biddapur Ring Road Kalaburagi, he met with an accident and sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-32-A-7941.? II. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-32-A-7941 had no valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident.? III. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for the compensation.? If so, how much and from whom.? IV. What order or award.? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 06. The petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and doctor examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 17 documents. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence has been led, except marking the Ex.R.1 – insurance policy. 07. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered the issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative and issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and partly allowed the claim petition by granting compensation at Rs.1,96,900/- by fixing the liability on the insurance company, as below :- Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain, shock and agony Rs.60,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.12,500/- 3. Food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses Rs.2,000/- 4. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.21,000/- 5. Loss of income towards permanent disability Rs.71,400/- 6. Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.1,96,900/- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 08. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 09. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the doctor has been opined that the disability is about 15% and he was suffered from fracture, but the Tribunal has taken only 5% towards the disability which is very meagre. The income taken by the Tribunal is also very meagre at Rs.7,000/- per month. Even during the period of treatment the loss of income is taken at Rs.21,000/- which is also very meagre. The discomfort and disappointment due to injuries sustained by him, he is not able to sit for long time in the chair, which is not properly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed for enhancing the compensation amount. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – insurance company supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects and rightly granted the compensation, which is just and proper and there is no need to enhance the same. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 11. Having heard the arguments, perused the records, the point that would arises for this Court are as under:- Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre, which requires for enhancement, if so to what extent.? 12. Insofar as the factum of the accident on 31.01.2013 at about 10.10 a.m. is not disputed. Since, the issue No.1 answered in favour of the petitioner, which is not disputed by the insurance company and liability is also not disputed. Therefore, only the consideration for this Court regarding compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or not. 13. On perusal of the records, the Tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/- per month for the accident dated 31.01.2013. According to our view, the income taken by the Tribunal is correct, there is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 no other documents produced by the petitioner, in order to show that his income is more than Rs.7,000/- per month. That apart Rs.12,500/- has been awarded towards the medical expenses that also not disputed by the insurance company, though the petitioner has claimed Rs.3,00,000/-, but the documents are produced for Rs.12,500/-, which is just and proper. Insofar towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses an amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded that also reveals that it is just and proper. The appellant was admitted to the hospital for only two days and was discharged. Therefore, the question of granting more amount does not arise. 14. This accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the lorry driver who came in high speed and dashed to the Tempo Trax of the petitioner and due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained two injuries that is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 diffuse disc bulge of L3-L4, L4-L5 causing indentation of subdural space and another injury is diffuse disc bulge at C3-C4, C5-C6 causing indentation of anterior CSF column. Though, there are no external injuries, but the scanning report says that he has sustained internal injuries due to the bulging of disc at C3-C4, C5-C6 and L4-L5 levels. Definitely, the petitioner has suffered lot of pain and agony due to internal injuries, though it is not visible. However, the injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, granting Rs.60,000/- under the pain, shock and agony, is very meager as nature of his avocation is sitting on a chair and he cannot sit on a chair for long time. Hence, we propose to enhance the amount to Rs.75,000/- towards pain, shock and agony by looking into the facts and circumstances of this case. 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. The nature of injury is diffuse disc bulge at L3-L4 and L4-L5 causing indentation of subdural space. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 Definitely, it will cause future disability and he cannot sit for a long time and he has to suffer throughout his life. Such being the case awarding Rs.30,000/- is little meager looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to enhance another Rs.15,000/- under this head. Accordingly, we propose to award Rs.45,000/- towards loss of amenities instead of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Depending on the loss of income towards disability, the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income at Rs.7,000/- and multiplier is applied by 17 and disability taken at 5% and accordingly, the total loss of income towards disability is at Rs.71,400/-. We do not incline to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, towards loss of future income due to disability. 17. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total enhanced compensation under the following heads :- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and agony Rs.75,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.12,500/- 3. Food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses Rs.02,000/- 4. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.21,000/- 5. Loss of income towards permanent disability Rs.71,400/- 6. Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities Rs.45,000/- Total Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,26,900/- Rs.1,96,900/- Total enhancement Rs.30,000/- 18. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Therefore, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 17.09.2018 passed in MVC.No.672/2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi is modified. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1538-DB MFA No. 201241 of 2019 (iii) The appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,26,900/- as against Rs.1,96,900/- awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iv) The entire amount in deposit shall be released to the appellant. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE KJJ/MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT:SI