- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 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.202078 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DILIP S/O NANA BHOSALE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF KHUPASANGI, TALUKA MANGALWEDA, DISTRICT SOLAPUR-413 305, NOW RESIDING AT TORAVI, TALUK & DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA-586 108. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PANDURANG S/O DATTU MALAGE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF SATARWADI, TALUK JATH, DISTRICT SANGLI-416 404, MAHARSHTRA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R2; V/O DTD: 20.10.2022, NOTICE R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.07.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-XIII AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.1621/2012. 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) Though the matter is slated for admission, by consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No.1621 of 2012 by the learned IV- Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT., Vijayapura, the petitioner-claimant is before this Court in appeal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 3. This petition appears to have a checkered history. Earlier the petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.09.2014 and the petitioner had approached this Court in MFA No.201901/2014. The judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was referred back to award the compensation amount after assessing the evidence. Thereafter, the Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,52,874, which is now being questioned by the petitioner before this Court. 4. The case of the petitioner as made out before the Tribunal is that on 11.03.2012, while he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.MH-13-AH/1167, a Tipper bearing No.MH-10-Z-4502 crashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner, resulting in the petitioner sustaining injuries. He was admitted to Raka Hospital, Pandarpur and later was shifted to Ashwini Hospital, Solapur. During treatment, between 11.03.2012 to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 10.04.2012, there was amputation of the left leg below knee and thereafter he was discharged from the hospital. Claiming that the petitioner was earning Rs.7,500/- per month by working as agriculturist, he claimed petition before the Tribunal. 5. The petition was opposed by the respondents contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and they denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. Apart from that, both these respondents also contended that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction since the accident had occurred in Maharashtra. 6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to 14 were marked. The respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence but the official of the respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and the Ex.R1 was marked. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 7. As noted supra, the question as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been decided by this Court in the MFA No.201901/2014 and therefore, the said issue did not arise again before the Tribunal. The only question that was to be determined by the Tribunal was about the quantum of the compensation. 8. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,52,874/- under following heads: Solatium Rs.50,000/- Nourishment Rs.30,000/- Transportation Rs.20,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Permanent disability Rs.1,38,575/- Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,64,299/- 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the petitioner was aged 45 years at the time of the accident, working as an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 agriculturist, suffered the disability of amputation of the left leg below knee and the medical board has given a physical disability of 50 to 55 percent to the petitioner. He submitted that the functional disability should have been considered by the Tribunal with reference to his age and avocation, which has not been done. He also submits that the Tribunal should have considered the loss of future prospects also while calculating the compensation. He also disputes the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal alleging that it is abysmally low. Therefore, he seek re- assessment of the compensation in the matter. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-insurance company would submit that the amputation below knee where the stump is exceeding 12.7 centimeters would call for a disability of 50% under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act. Therefore, he defends that the assessment of the disability by the Tribunal at 18.33% which is 1/3rd of the disability assessed by the Medical Board. It is further submitted - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under remaining heads is also sufficient and no enhancement is required for the same. 12. On careful perusal of the records made available, it is evident that the disability which has been stated in the Employees Compensation Act is relevant for the purpose of calculation of the loss of future income. Obviously, the disability stated in the Employees Compensation Act could not have been reduced by 1/3rd as done by the Tribunal. On this count, the Tribunal clearly erred in reducing the disability stated by the Medical Board. It did not follow the schedule under the Employees Compensation Act also. 13. It is needless to say that when the petitioner has approached the Court under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not necessary for this Court to rely upon the Employees Compensation Act. What is required to be assessed is the functional disability of the petitioner, with respect to his age and avocation. The petitioner - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 being aged about 45 years, has suffered amputation of the left leg below knee with stump of about 14 c.m., as evidenced by the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board at Ex.P12. Therefore, when the Medical Board has assessed the physical disability at 50 to 55%, considering the fact that petitioner is aged about 45 years, who was agriculturist, the functional disability is assessed by this Court at 60%. The age of the petitioner that he was 45 years is being not in dispute, the proper multiplier would be ‘14’. 14. Coming to the income, there being no conclusive evidence to show the income of the petitioner, the notional income has been adopted by the Tribunal. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribes a notional income of Rs.6,500/- for the year 2012. Adding 25% towards future prospects, the effective multiplicand would be Rs.6,500/- + 1625 = Rs.8,125/-. Accordingly, the loss - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 of income due to disability is calculated as Rs.8,125/- x 12 x 14 x 60% = Rs.8,19,000/-. 15. Holding that the petitioner was unable to resume his work at least for a period of six months on account of the amputation, the loss of income during laid up period is calculated at Rs.6,500/- x 6 = Rs.39,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. Considering the fact that there is amputation of left leg, the compensation under the head loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘Solatium’. There is no such head, therefore, the same is not admissible. However, the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the petitioner need a prosthesis on account of the amputation of the left lower limb. Therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of future medical expenses as cost of the prosthesis. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 18. The compensation awarded under remaining heads i.e., pain and suffering, transportation, nourishment and medical expenses do not require any enhancement. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,97,299/- as below, as against Rs.5,52,874/- awarded by the Tribunal: Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.1,64,299/- Rs.1,64,299/- 3 Conveyance, attendant’s charges and nourishment Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4 Loss of income due to permanent physical disability Rs.1,38,575/- Rs.8,19,000/- 5 Loss of amenities in life Rs.50,000/- Rs.75,000/- 6 Loss of income during laid up period -- Rs.39,000/- 7 Solatium Rs.50,000/- -- 8 Future medical expenses and cost of the prosthesis -- Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.5,52,874/- Rs.12,97,299/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.5,52,874/- Total enhancement Rs.7,44,425/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2423 MFA No. 202078 of 2022 19. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed and hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant-petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.7,44,425/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest, within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SMP, SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: AK