- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202878 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: HANUMANTHI W/O HANUMANAGOUDA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O: NUGADONI-HOSUR VILLAGE, TQ: MANVI, NOW AT ASHAPUR ROAD, RAICHUR – 584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRAKASH S/O RAJAPPA DAKULAGI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO. KA 39/5094, R/O: MUGANOOR VILLAGE, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. 2. BHUMANNA S/O SOMANNA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. KA 39/5094, R/O: JEROLLI VILLAGE, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 314. Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 3. THE MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGD OFFICE, IFFCO SADAN, C-1, DIST: CENTRE, SAKETE, NEW DELHI, THROUGH BR. MANAGER, IFFCO - TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRI SHARANA ASSOCIATES, L COMPLEX, SHOP NO.G1, OPP, GANDHINAGAR, KALABURAGI – 585 104 DIST: KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V., ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO.359/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, 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 04.01.2022 passed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur, in MVC no.359/2019, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Basavaraj R.Math, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted at 4.30 p.m., on 18.09.2018, when she along with her husband was proceeding on motorcycle no.KA-36/EQ- 2809 on Lingasugur-Gurugunta road, driver of lorry no.KA- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 39/5094 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle causing accident. In said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries and admitted to hospital. Despite taking treatment, she did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity. Therefore, she filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, against driver, owner and insurer of lorry. 3. On contest, wherein owner and insurer of offending vehicle filed separate objections denying accident due to sole negligence of lorry, alleging contributory negligence on part of rider of motorcycle, denying liability on ground of violation of policy conditions etc. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined herself and Dr.Mahantesh Akki as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. Insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver, claimant had sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity, vehicle was insured and therefore insurer was liable to pay compensation assessed by it as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and agony Rs.1,25,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.1,90,000/- 3 Food, conveyance and nourishment Rs.20,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid off period Rs.47,000/- 5 Loss of future income Rs.11,98,500/- 6 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Total Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.16,30,500/- 5. Dissatisfied with award, claimant was in appeal. 6. It was firstly submitted claimant had sustained crush injury to left upper limb, degloving of skin from palm till elbow, loss of muscles etc., apart from fracture of ribs and ulna of left hand. However, tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,000/- only towards pain and suffering. It was further submitted though claimant had stated she had taken in patient treatment for a period of six months, tribunal awarded inadequate compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. It was submitted award of Rs.50,000/- only towards loss of amenities when due to crush injury, there was fusion of skin and claimant was unable to use left hand. Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of disfigurement as claimant was 26 years old woman. It was further submitted, tribunal assessed functional disability at 50% even when PW.2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 had assessed disability at 90% and had not added future prospects to monthly income. On said grounds, sought enhancement. 7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted tribunal had taken note of facts and circumstances of case and material on record and awarded just compensation separately under each heads leaving no scope for enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and certified copies of pleadings, deposition and exhibits made available for perusal by learned counsel for appellant. 9. From above, since this is an appeal by claimant for enhancement of compensation while insurer has accepted award, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for? 10. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative, for following reasons: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 11. Though claimant stated that she was 26 years of age working as tailor and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, since it was not substantiated, tribunal assessed it notionally at Rs.11,750/- which is inconsonance with notional income adopted by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Though claimant stated that she had lost earning for six months period during which she took treatment, tribunal awarded Rs.47,000/- only. Taking note of assertion and in absence of any contrary evidence and since claimant is unable to use faculties of her left hand due to degloving and fusion of skin, it would be appropriate to consider six months as period of lay-off. Thus, claimant would be entitled for Rs.70,500/- towards same. 12. Taking note of injuries sustained, tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,000/- towards pain and agony. As it does not appear to be grossly inadequate, there would be no scope for interference. 13. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,90,000/- towards medical expenses in complete re-imbursement of bills - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 produced. Therefore, there would be no scope for enhancement. 14. Taking note of inpatient for period of 27 days, award of Rs.20,000/- towards food, conveyance and other incidental expenses would be on lower side, same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. 15. PW.2 has assessed limb disability at 90%. Taking note of contents of Ex.P7-discharge certificate and Exs.P12 and 13-photographs and finding that claimant is unable to use faculties of her left upper limb, tribunal assessed functional disability at 50%. Taking note of possibility of earning by alternative avocation, assessment by tribunal of functional disability appears just and proper. However, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd.Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC1 there has to be addition of future prospects even in case of personal injury claims. Since claimant was 26 years age, self-employed 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, future loss of income would be: 1(2023)20 SCC 774 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 Rs.11,750 + 40% x 12 x 17 = Rs.16,77,900/- 16. Taking note of young age of claimant and fact that claimant is lady, tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards disfigurement, loss of marriage prospects etc. In facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to award sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards same. 17. Taking note of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr.2, award of Rs.50,000/- only towards loss of amenities would be grossly inadequate, fusion of left hand equals amputation. Therefore, award towards loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, total compensation would be: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and agony Rs.1,25,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.1,90,000/- 3 Food, conveyance and nourishment Rs.35,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid off period Rs.70,500/- 5 Loss of future income Rs.16,77,900/- 6 Loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/- 7 Loss of disfigurement and etc. Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.23,48,400/- 2 (2011) 1 SCC 343 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3576 MFA No. 202878 of 2022 18. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Judgment and award dated 04.01.2022 passed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur, in MVC no.359/2019, is modified. iii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.23,48,400/- as against Rs.16,30,500/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before Tribunal within a period of six weeks. v. On deposit, conditions imposed by tribunal for deposit and release shall apply to enhanced compensation proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43