- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201813 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRIMANTH S/O SAKRAPPA HADPAD, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BARBER (NOW NIL), R/O: H.NO.281, SYED CHINCHOLLI ROAD, SHAIKH ROZA, ASHRAYA COLONY, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SABANNA S/O MONAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KA-32/N-0638, R/O: LADLAPUR, TQ: CHITTAPUR & DIST: KALABURAGI. 2. THE RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, 4TH BLOCK, ASIAN PLAZA COMPLEX, STATION MAIN ROAD, NEAR S.V.PATEL CHOWK, KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN M.V.C.NO.418/2017, DATED 15.06.2019, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 15.06.2019 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC no.418/2017, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, on 24.01.2017, when claimant was riding motorcycle bearing reg.no.KA-32/W-9330 along with his friend at 8.00 p.m. near IOC Gate, Kalaburagi, when driver of Scorpio bearing reg.no.KA-32/N-0638 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle. Due to same, claimant sustained grievous injuries. Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of offending jeep. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 3. On contest, wherein owner/Insurer opposed claim petition on all counts including alleging violation of policy conditions etc., tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.Ramakant Kulkarni as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Respondents did not lead evidence. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured jeep by its driver, claimant had sustained permanent physical disability and lost earning capacity and was therefore entitled for compensation from insurer as follows :- 1. Pain and suffering `50,000/- 2. Attendant charges, food and conveyance charges `11,500/- 3. Loss of future income `3,68,600/- 4. Medical expenditure `2,22,300/- 5. Loss of income during treatment `24,000/- 6. Loss of amenities and nutrition food `25,000/- Total `7,01,400/- Not satisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. 5. It was submitted, claimant was 35 years of age, working as Barber and earning `15,000/- per month. However, tribunal erred in taking it notionally at `8,000/-, same called for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 enhancement. It was further submitted, claimant sustained fracture of mid-shaft lower 3rd of right humerus, fracture of right accetabulum and fracture of medial malleolus which were major fractures. But, tribunal awarded inadequate compensation of `50,000/- towards pain and suffering. It was further contended claimant had taken inpatient treatment for 23 days. Therefore, award of `11,500/- only towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance etc., was inadequate. It was submitted, even loss of income during laid-up period and amenities was also inadequate. It was lastly contended that PW.2–Doctor had assessed whole body disability to extent of 72.7%. However, tribunal considered only 24% as loss of earning capacity which was inadequate and sought enhancement. 6. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for respondent–insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, tribunal had taken note of injuries, disability sustained and awarded just compensation, leaving no scope for enhancement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 8. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation, while insurer has accepted award, point that would require consideration is : “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for ?” Same is answered partly in affirmative, for following reasons : 9. Occurrence of accident, involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, claimant sustaining permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity due to same and insurer being held liable to pay compensation are not in dispute. Appeal is on quantum. Insofar as monthly income, though claimant stated that he was working as Barber and earning `15,000/- per month, same was not substantiated any material, Tribunal assessed it notionally. Notional income for year 2017 being `10,250/-, same was required to be considered. Claimant sustained three major fractures, award of `50,000/- towards pain and suffering same - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 would be inadequate. Normally, this Court grants `25,000/- towards major fractures. Thus, claimant is awarded `75,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since claimant suffered fractures which normally heal in three months, award of Tribunal towards loss of income during laid up period is not justified, same is enhanced to `30,750/-. 10. Tribunal awarded `11,500/- only towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Taking note of fact that claimant had taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 23 days, it would be appropriate to enhance it to `25,000/-. PW.2 who examined claimant assessed whole body disability at 72.7%. Taking note of fact that there is no detailed explanation of restriction of movement and its effect on profession, assessment by PW.2 cannot be considered as loss of earning capacity. Same would require moderation. Considering occupation, it would be appropriate to consider loss of earning capacity at 35%. 11. PW.2 has further stated that claimant requires to undergo operation for removal of implants. Implants are seen at all three fracture sides. Taking note of same, it would be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 appropriate to award `1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. 12. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd.Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation1 future prospects would require to be added to monthly income even in case of personal injury claims. Since claimant is 35 years of age and self employed, 40% has to be added as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. Thus, computation of future loss of income would be as follows:- (`10,250 + 40%) x 35% x 12 x 16 = `9,64,320/-. 13. Tribunal has awarded `2,22,300/- towards complete reimbursement of medical bills. Therefore, there would be no scope for enhancement. Taking note of number of injuries sustained and disability caused, Tribunal would not be justified in awarding `25,000/- only towards loss of amenities, it would 1 (2022) 18 S.C.R. 427 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 be appropriate to enhance it to `40,000/-. Thus, total compensation would be as follows :- 1. Pain and suffering `75,000/- 2. Attendant charges, food and conveyance charges `25,000/- 3. Loss of future income `9,64,320/- 4. Medical expenditure `2,22,300/- 5. Loss of income during treatment `30,750/- 6. Loss of amenities and nutrition food `40,000/- 7. Future medical expenses `1,00,000/- Total `14,57,370/- 14. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 15.06.2019 passed in MVC no.418/2017 by Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi is modified, claimant is held entitled for total compensation of`14,57,370/- as against `7,01,400/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. ii. Insurer is held liable to pay same and is directed to deposit it before Tribunal within six weeks. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3271 MFA No. 201813 of 2019 iii. Conditions imposed by Tribunal about deposit and release would apply to enhanced compensation proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 Ct;Vk