- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201664 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI HANUMESH S/O SABAIAH KURKUNDA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDING, R/O KURKUNDI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR, NOW R/O VENKATESHWAR COLONY, RAICHUR-584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ASHOK S/O MALLANAGOUDA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC BUS VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-36/F-896, R/O KADDONI VILLAGE, RAICHUR-584 101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEKRTC, RAICHUR DIVISION, RAICHUR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 16.07.2021, NOTICE TO R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.03.19 12:03:28 -0700 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR, IN M.V.C. NO.65/2018 AND SOUGHT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF RS.15,00,000/-. THIS APPEAL 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 dated 08.02.2019 passed in MVC No.65/2018 by the MACT- Raichur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.12.2017 the petitioner was a pillion rider on motorcycle driven by his friend Sharanabasava and while they are proceeding towards Manvi the driver of NEKRTC bus bearing No.KA-36/F-896 came from Neermanvi side and dashed to the motorcycle resulting in the petitioner falling - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 down and sustaining injuries. The right leg below knee was auto amputated and he was immediately taken to Primary Health Centre Sirwar and thereafter to RIMS Hospital, Raichur. His leg was amputated below knee and he was aged 20 years at the time of the accident, working as a milk vendor and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and therefore, the petitioner is claimed adequate compensation. 3. The respondent No.2-Corporation appeared and resisted the petition contending that the accident was not due to the negligence of the bus driver, but in fact it was due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. It was contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and it denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. 4. On the basis of the above contention, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P37. Respondent No.1 got - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 examined himself as RW.1 and representative of respondent No.2 was examined as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 5. After hearing arguments by both sides, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the negligence was on part of the bus driver and the petitioner being the pillion rider he is entitled for compensation. It awarded a sum of Rs.9,36,000/- under following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.75,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/- 3. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- 4. For nourishing, extra nourishment and for special diet Rs.15,000/- 5. For loss of future earning on account of disability suffered to the extent of 75% to whole body Rs.6,48,000/- 6. For loss of earning during treatment period for 3 months at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. Rs.18,000/- 7. For fixing artificial limb charges Rs.1,00,000/- 8. For loss of marital life Rs.25,000/- 9. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.9,36,000/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 7. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation were heard. 8. At the outset it is necessary to note that even though it was contended that the negligence was on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, such a contention could not have been raised by the respondents. The petitioner was a pillion rider and therefore he had no reason not to seek the compensation from any one of the tortfeasor and as such, the respondents could not escape from the liability. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation under the head of loss of future earnings. He submits that the Tribunal should have considered the loss of future prospects also. It is submitted that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 functional disability of petitioner assessed by the Tribunal at 50% as stated by PW.2, which is regarding the physical disability is incorrect. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that there is no need for considering the loss of future prospects and she submitted that the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 50% is proper and correct. She also contended that, the disability of 50% is considered even under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore there is no need for indulgence. 11. It is pertinent to note that the functional disability and the physical disability are the two aspects, which needs to be considered in any petition filed for claiming the compensation. In the judgment of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another1, the Apex Court has laid down the principles on which the functional 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 disability has to be assessed. In the case on hand none of the parties have invoked the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employees Compensation Act. Therefore, adopting the schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, is unnecessary. 12. The fact that the petitioner was a pillion rider of the motorcycle and it had met with an accident with the bus driven by the respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2 is not in dispute. The petitioner claims that he was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and the medical records produced by him at Ex.P6 and the photographs produced would clearly indicate that he suffered below knee amputation of the right lower limb. Evidently, the petitioner has not produced any material to show his income and avocation. Therefore, the fact that he was a milk vendor or a coolie has to be accepted and the compensation has to be worked out on the basis of the notional income. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 13. In umpteen number of judgments, including the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mariyamma vs. Suyambulingam2, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore they can be adopted as the notional income. Therefore, the income of the petitioner has to be held at Rs.10,250/- per month. 14. Coming to the disability, the P.W.2-Dr.Vijay Mahanth Prasad has stated that there being an amputation below knee, the disability is 75%. Though he states that disability of 75% to the whole body, obviously he cannot assess the functional disability since the avocation of the petitioner was not brought before him. The functional disability of the petitioner has to be assessed by this Court in the light of the physical disability stated by PW.2. Considering the age of the petitioner, which is about 20 years and his ability to adopt to a new way of life and 2 MFA No.7404/2014 DD: 06.12.2022 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 earning and also that he was in the beginning of his career as milk vendor, it would be just and proper to hold the functional disability of the petitioner at 60%. 15. The disability being more than 50%, such disability definitely affects his entire career. In that view of the matter, the notional income of Rs.10,250/- per month has to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects of earning, which he would suffer permanently. Hence, by adding 40%, effective multiplicand would come to Rs.14,350/- [Rs.10,250/- + 40%]. Therefore, loss of future income on account of disability is calculated as Rs.14,350/- x 12 x 18 x 60% = Rs.18,59,760/-. 16. As a consequence, the loss of earning during laid up period has to be calculated by taking into consideration that he could not adapt himself to a new way of life without the right lower limb and the same is considered for 6 months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.61,500/- is awarded to him under this head. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 17. The compensation under the head of loss of amenities being awarded Rs.30,000/- by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 18. The compensation awarded to the remaining heads do not require any enhancement. 19. Thus, the petitioner entitled for total compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.75,000/- Rs.75,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 3. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. For nourishing, extra nourishment and for special diet Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 5. For loss of future earning on account of disability suffered Rs.6,48,000/- Rs.18,59,760/- 6. For loss of earning during treatment period Rs.18,000/- Rs.61,500/- 7. For artificial limb charges Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 8. For loss of marital life Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 9. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.9,36,000/- Rs.22,11,260/- Enhancement Rs.12,75,260/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1527 MFA No. 201664 of 2019 20. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in-part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in-part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,75,260/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) The respondent No.2-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. (v) The Registry to send back the TCR to the concerned Court. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63 CT: AK