- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202925/2022(MV-I) BETWEEN: KALLAPPA S/O SHIVAGONDAPPA ALAMEL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MIRAGI, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-585 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER N.E.K.R.T.C., ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-585 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1347/2018 BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI AT VIJAYAPURA AND ENHANCE Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.6,99,100/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- 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) 1. Though this matter is slated for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 3. This appeal is by the petitioner-claimant against the judgment and award dated 23.03.2021 passed in MVC No.1347/2018 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VI, Vijayapura, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 08.05.2018 at about 2.30 p.m., when the petitioner was standing by the side of the road, a bus owned by the respondent, bearing No.KA-28/F-2211, came in reverse and the front wheel of the bus ran over the right leg of the petitioner. The petitioner sustained crush injuries over the right leg and he was taken to the hospital, where, he was treated by surgery and he was inpatient for 72 days. Claiming that at the time of accident he was aged about 50 years and working as an Agriculturist, he approached the Tribunal seeking just and reasonable compensation. 5. The respondent-Corporation appeared and denied the claim of the petitioner contending that the said claim is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It also denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. 6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and recorded the evidence. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor, who assessed the disability was examined as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 PW2 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked in evidence. The Driver of the bus was examined as RW1. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,99,120/- under the following heads: 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- 2 Medical expenses incurred and future medical expenses, Attendant, Conveyance, Nourishing food and other incidental expenses Rs.5,35,800/- 3 Loss of income during laid-up period Rs.21,000/- 4 Loss of future income on account of permanent disability Rs.1,12,320/- 5 Loss of Amenities, Life comforts and expectancy of life Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.6,99,120/- 7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 8. The fact that there was an accident involving the bus owned by the respondent-Corporation is not in dispute. Obviously, the vehicle had come in reverse and had injured the petitioner, who was a bystander at the site of the accident. The testimony of the PW2 would show that the petitioner had sustained circumferential degloving injury on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 the right leg and dislocation of the right ankle with few fractures. The Wound Certificate issued by the hospital establishes the same. PW2 in his testimony states that the movement of the ankle joint is restricted and therefore, that the disability is of 25 to 30%. The restriction of the movements are for dorsi-flexion of right ankle joint, which definitely would result in gait walking and impair his ability to work as an Agriculturist. It is also noticed by this Court that the PW2-Doctor had treated the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that when the petitioner has suffered the injury at the age of 50 years, the disability would be on the higher side. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the functional disability by the Tribunal at 8% is improper and as such, the disability is reassessed at 12%. 9. In the absence of any evidence to show the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.11,750/- for the year 2018. In - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the appellant-petitioner is accepted as Rs.11,750/- per month. Accordingly, the loss of future income on account of permanent disability is assessed at Rs.11,750/- x 12 x 13 x 12% = Rs.2,19,960/-, by adopting multiplier of ‘13’ for the age of 50 years. 10. Consequently, the loss of income during laid up period is calculated for five months at Rs.11,750/-, which comes to Rs.58,750/- 11. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has disbelieved the say of the petitioner that he was inpatient for 72 days. The Disability Certificate at Ex.P12 issued by the Tanga Multi Specialty Hospital would show that the petitioner was admitted on 08.05.2018 and was discharged on 18.07.2018 and he had undergone surgery on three occasions. It is also pertinent to note that the PW2 is none - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 else than the Doctor of said Tanga Multi Specialty Hospital where the petitioner had taken treatment. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in disbelieving the treatment for a period of 72 days. In the result, the compensation under the head of Special nourishment, Attendant’s charges is assessed at Rs.70,000/-. 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and considering the nature of injuries and treatment, the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has suffered the disability at the age of 50 years, which he would suffer for rest of the life and therefore, it would be just and proper to award Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life. 14. The compensation awarded at Rs.5,25,800/- towards Medical expenses and future medical expenses, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 15. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,44,510/- as below, as against Rs.6,99,120/- awarded by the Tribunal: Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical expenses incurred and future medical expenses, Attendant, Conveyance, Nourishing food and other incidental expenses Rs.5,35,800/- Rs.5,25,800/- + Rs.70,000/- 3 4 Loss of income during laid-up period Rs.21,000/- Rs.58,750/- 5 Loss of future income on account of permanent disability Rs.1,12,320/- Rs.2,19,960/- 6 Loss of Amenities, Life comforts and expectancy of life Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.6,99,120/- Rs.9,44,510/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.6,99,120/- Total enhancement Rs.2,45,390/- 16. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part and hence, the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2447 MFA No. 202925 of 2022 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant-petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,45,390/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest within a period of 06 weeks from the date of this judgment. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT: AK