- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 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.202075 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202076 OF 2018 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.202075/2018: BETWEEN: SHANTAPPA @ SHANTHKUMAR S/O SANGANABASAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR & AGRICULTURE, R/O NAGRAHAL, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR, NOW R/O AT C/O NINGAPPA, H.NO.2-2-22, ANDROON QUILLA, RAICHUR-584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANMUKH SUREGAONKAR S/O SOMANTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF FORD FIESTA CAR BEARING NO.KA-26/M-2415, R/O KORIPETH STREET, SAVANOOR, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISI0N OFFICE, V.V. SUKHANI COMPLEX, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 1ST FLOOR, GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADV. FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUIR, DATED 07.09.2017, IN MVC NO.520/2013, AND AWARD COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION. IN MFA NO.202076/2018: BETWEEN: CHANDRAMMA @ CHANDRAKALA W/O SHANTAPPA @ SHANTHKUMAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O NAGRAHAL, TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR, NOW R/O AT C/O NINGAPPA, H.NO.2-2-22, ANDROON QUILLA, RAICHUR-584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANMUKH SUREGAONKAR S/O SOMANTAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF FORD FIESTA CAR BEARING NO.KA-26/M-2415, R/O KORIPETH STREET, SAVANOOR, DIST. HAVERI-581 118. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISI0N OFFICE, V.V. SUKHANI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 15.09.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR DATED 07.09.2017 IN MVC NO.521/2013 AND AWARD COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION. THESE APPEALS 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 the award in MVC No.521/2013 and MVC No.520/2013, the petitioners in both these petitions are before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and assailing the judgment by the learned I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge & MACT, Raichur. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 2. The factual matrix of the case is as below: The petitioner-Shantappa (in MVC No.520/2013) and his wife Chandramma (petitioner in MVC No.521/2013) were going in the car bearing No.KA-36-M-9908 and driven by the said Shantappa towards Hubli. When they were near Shelavadi, a Ford Fiesta car bearing No.KA-36/ M-2415 came from their hindside and dashed to their car resulting in the petitioner-Shantappa losing control over the vehicle and it went on the side of the road and dashed to a road side tree. Both the petitioners who were the inmates of the said car were injured in the accident and they were shifted to the hospital. The jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.235/2012 and ultimately after investigation filed the charge sheet. 3. The petitioner-Shantappa in MVC No.520/2013 contends that he had sustained subtrochanteric fracture of the right femur, fracture of the ribs, multiple facial fractures, fracture of the frontal process of maxilla on both sides and the fracture of the right nasal bone. He further - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 contends that he was a contractor by profession, earning Rs.40,000/- per month and he having sustained permanent disability, aged about 40 years, is entitled for an adequate compensation. 4. The petitioner in MVC No.521/2013 contends that she had sustained intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur, fracture of the left forth rib, dento-alveolar fracture and facial maxillary fractures. She contended that she was an agriculturist and therefore, she is also entitled for adequate compensation. 5. On service of notice to the respondent No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 alone appeared and filed the written statement. The respondent No.1 was placed ex- parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company contended that the claim of the petitioners is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and it denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioners. Inter-alia it was contended that the negligence was not on the part of the driver of the Ford Fiesta car but it was due to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 negligence of the petitioner-Shantappa. It is contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the respondent No.1 and therefore, the respondent No.1 be held a liable to pay the compensation amount. 6. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioners were examined as PW1 and 2. A doctor was examined on their behalf as PW3 and Ex.P1 to 123 were marked in evidence. On behalf of the respondent No.2, no evidence was laid but Ex.R1 to 3 were marked. 7. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under different heads in both these petitions as below: In MVC No.520/2013 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Loss of future earning Rs.1,08,000/- Medical expenses based on medical bills and evidence Rs.1,64,340/- Attendance charge and special food and diet and also transportation charges Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.3,72,340/- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 In MVC No.521/2013 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Loss of future earning Rs.81,600/- Medical expenses based on medical bills and evidence Rs.1,24,101/- Attendance charge and special food and diet and also transportation charges Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.3,05,701/- 8. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and award the petitioners are before this Court in appeal. The petitioner in MVC 520/2023, Shantappa is in appeal before this Court in MFA No.202075/2018 and the petitioner in MVC No.521/2013, Chandramma is before this Court in MFA No.202076/2018. 9. The arguments by learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 were heard. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the petitioner-Shantappa was about 40 years at the time of the accident and though he contended that he was a contractor earning - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 Rs.40,000/- per month, he could not produce any documentary evidence. The Tribunal should have taken note of the fact that the petitioner holds a Alto car and therefore, it could have easily assessed the income of the petitioner. He submits that the Tribunal failed in assessing a proper income and award the compensation. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to reassess the compensation. So far as the petitioner-Chandramma is concerned, he submits that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life and loss of income during the laid up period. Therefore, he seeks reassessment of the compensation in the matter. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondant No. 2 would submit that the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is proper and correct and there is no need to enhance the same. 12. The perusal of the records would reveal that the petitioner-Shantappa though claimed that he was a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 contractor did not produce any documentary evidence to show his income. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that notional income has to be considered. The Courts cannot jump to the conclusions regarding the income, based on the fact that he owned a car. In fact there is no evidence on record to show that the car which was driven by him was owned by him. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in holding that notional income has to be applied. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-adalats prescribe a notional income of Rs.6,500/- for the year 2012. In umpteen a 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, the notional income of Rs.6,500/- per month has to be accepted. In MVC No.520/2013 (MFA No.202075/2018) 13. The petitioner-Shantappa had sustained subtrochanteric fracture of the right femur, fracture of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 left ribs 2 to 6, multiple facial fractures and that of maxilla. The testimony of the PW3-Dr.Harish Murthy shows that he issued the disability certificate as per Ex. P10 and stated that the petitioner-Shantappa has about 11 problems and therefore, the disability of the petitioner- Shantappa is 25%. The Tribunal in para 17, appreciated the testimony of the PW3 and came to the conclusion that the functional disability of the petitioner is 10%. The said conclusion of the Tribunal need not be interfered with as the disability has been properly assessed by it. Therefore, the loss of income due to disability is calculated as Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 15 x 10% by applying the multiplier of 15 = Rs.1,17,000/-. 14. Consequently, the compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period is calculated as Rs.6,500/- x 4 = Rs.26,000/- by holding that petitioner could not resume his work at least for a period of four months. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 15. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head. 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the remaining heads does not require any enhancement. 17. Hence the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,32,340/- instead of Rs.3,72,340/-. under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Loss of future earning Rs.1,17,000/- 3. Medical expenses based on medical bills and evidence Rs.1,64,340/- 4. Attendance charge and special food and diet and also transportation charges Rs.50,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.25,000/- 6. Loss of amenities in life Rs.26,000/- Total Rs.4,32,340/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,72,340/- Total enhancement Rs.60,000/- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 In MVC No.521/2013 (MFA No.202076/2018) 18. The petitioner-Chandrama contends that she had sustained fracture of the femur. She examined the PW3 who assessed her disability. The testimony of the PW3 and the disability certificate at Ex.P148 shows that there is a disability of 18%. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 8%. She being a house wife, the disability assessed by the Tribunal does not require any reconsideration or enhancement. Therefore, the future loss of income due to disability is calculated as Rs.6,500/ x 12 x 8% 17 = Rs.1,06,080/-. 19. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life and therefore, a sum of is Rs.15,000/- is awarded under this head. The compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period is calculated for 3 months at Rs.6,500/- x 3 = Rs.19,500/-. 20. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the remaining head does not require any - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 enhancement. Hence the petitioner-Chandramma is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,64,681/- instead of Rs.3,05,701/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Loss of future earning Rs.1,06,080/- 3. Medical expenses based on medical bills and evidence Rs.1,24,101/- 4. Attendance charge and special food and diet and also transportation charges Rs.50,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.19,500/- 6. Loss of amenities in life Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.3,64,681/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,05,701/- Total enhancement Rs.58,980/- 21. In the result, both the appeals deserve to be allowed in-part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Both the appeals are allowed in-part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner-Shantappa (in MVC No.520/2013) is entitled for a sum of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2434 MFA No. 202075 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 202076 of 2018 Rs.60,000/- 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 appellant/petitioner-Chandramma (in MVC No.521/2013) is entitled for a sum of Rs.58,980/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iv) The respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (v) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered. (vi) The Registry to send back the trial court records to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 CT: AK