- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202151 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: KASHAPPA S/O BUGGAPPA GOLLA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE & AGRICULTURE, R/O KONAPUR, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASHAPPA S/O NARASAPPA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE AUTO NO.KA-32/B-0486, R/O KONAPUR, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MAIN ROAD, BILGUNDI COMPLEX, OPP: VIDHAN SOUDHA, KALABURAGI-585 101. 3. JAGADISH S/O HANAMAYYA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE COMMANDER JEEP NO.AP-07/S-6100, R/O KURKUNTA, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAI-585 101. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 4. THE MANAGER OF IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ASIAN ARCADE G1,G2,G12,G13, NEAR ANAND HOTEL, KALABURAGI-585 101. 1 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2; SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R4; V/O DTD. 28.01.2021, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-23.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.912/2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI, AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.3,35,800/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.15,00,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. 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) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and 4. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.912/2016 by learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Sedam, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The fact that on 12.08.2016 at about 3:35 PM in front of HDFC Bank, on Kodangal-Sedam road while the petitioner and others were traveling in Auto rickshaw, there was a collision with the Jeep owned by the respondent No.3 and insured by respondent No.4 and in the said accident the petitioner sustained injuries is not in dispute. The only question that is raised by the parties in this appeal is regarding the quantum of the compensation amount in the light of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. 4. Obviously the police have filed chargesheet against drivers of both the vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal has fastened equal liability upon the two tortfeasor and the petitioner being inmate of the Auto - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 rickshaw, awarded compensation under different heads as below; Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Attendant charges, food and conveyance charges Rs.2,500/- Loss of future income Rs.2,55,400/- Medical expenditure Rs.45,900/- Loss of income during treatment Rs.7,000/- Loss of amenities and nutrition food Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.3,35,800/- 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner had suffered fracture of the right ulna and he was aged 35 years, earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as a coolie. It is submitted that when there is fracture to the right upper limb by way of fracture of ulna, it being his dominant hand, he has suffered disability of about 60% to the limb as stated by the treated Doctor-PW 2. Therefore, he contents that the income of the petitioner having considered by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is on the lower side and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 disability is also not properly assessed by the Tribunal. Therefore he seek re-assessment of the compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 4, the two insurance companies of the both vehicles, submit that the Tribunal has correctly held the income of the petitioner and it has granted adequate compensation to the petitioner under all the admissible heads. Therefore, they seek dismissal of the appeal. 7. The records made available to this Court show that petitioner had sustained the fracture of the ulna and the PW2 being a treated doctor has stated that there is disability of 60% to the limb which translates into 35 to 40% of the whole body disability. It is pertinent a note that it is the functional disability which needs to be assessed by the Tribunal but not the physical disability. The 60% disability to the limb is attributable to the fact that the fracture of the ulna has resulted in restricted movement supination and pronation. It was also observed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 by him that there is wasting of the muscles resulting in depleted strength in the right hand. Therefore, the petitioner being a coolie and the disability to the right hand has definitely resulted in functional disability to him. The considering the age of the petitioner which is 35 years, the functional disability is considered by this Court at 25%. 8. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,750/- per month for the year 2016. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable. Therefore, the loss of future income on account of disability is calculated as Rs.8,750 x 12 x 16 x 25%= Rs.4,20,000/- by adopting a multiplier of 16 for the age of 25 years. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 9. Consequently, the compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period is calculated at Rs.8,750/- x 2= Rs.17,500/-. 10. The compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-, the compensation under the head of attendant charges, food conveyance and nourishment is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, the loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The compensation under the head of medical expenses do not require any enhancement. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of *(Rs.2,07,600/- under the following heads:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of future income Rs.4,20,000/- 2. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.17,500/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 4. Attendant charges, food conveyance and nourishment Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- 6. Medical expenses Rs.45,900/- Total Rs.5.43.400/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,35,800/- Total enhancement Rs.2,07,600/-) * Corrected vide order dated 22.04.2025. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1857 MFA No. 202151 of 2019 11. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Therefore, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of *Rs.2,07,600/- 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) Respondent No.2 & 4 -Insurance company 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 including apportionment between respondent Nos.2 and 4 remain unaltered. Counsel for respondent No.2 is permitted to file vakalath within two weeks. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT: AK * Rectified as per order dated 22.04.2025.