- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 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.202251 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. VEENA W/O VENKATARAO DESHPANDE, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O BHUPUR, TQ. LINGASUR, DIST. RAICHUR, NOW RESIDING AT VENKATESH NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GADDEPPA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA HULLALLI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KOLUR, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 21.01.2021, NOTICE TO R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.10,95,414/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 AWARD OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.V AND PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT VIJAYAPURA DATED 21.02.2019, IN MVC NO.1099/2016. 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 learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No..2-Insurance Company. The appeal is admitted. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.02.2019 in MVC No.1099/2016 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM & MACT-V, Vijayapura (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 12.04.2016 at about 3:00 p.m. near Jainapur cross, on Nalatwad to Adavi Hulagbal road, while the petitioner was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/ED-4966 as pillion rider, the rider drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and fell into road side ditch causing the accident. The petitioner fell down and sustained injuries and she was admitted to Dr.Katti hospital, Bagalkot. The petitioner had sustained injuries to thoracic vertebrae and as such, the injury was severe, which resulted in disability. Alleging that the accident was due to the negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle, she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal contending that she is aged about 38 years, working as coolie, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. 4. On being served with the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear and as such, placed ex parte. The respondent No.2 appeared and filed the written statement. The respondent No.2 contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and there were violations of the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance. Inter alia it was also contended that the factum of the accident - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 need to be proved by the petitioner and it denied its liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues and petitioner was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to 17 were marked. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW.2. The respondent No.2 got marked Exs.R1 to 3 by consent. 6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,04,586/- under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of future earning Rs.4,32,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 3. Food, nourishment, conveyance, etc. Rs.10,000/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs.2,12,586/- Total Rs.7,04,586/- 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the medical records produced by the petitioner indicate that the petitioner has suffered paraplegia, both limbs below waist are dysfunctional and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 the petitioner is totally bedridden. Her mobility has been severely impaired due to paraplegia at the age of 38 years. She being the pillar of the family has suffered such a severe disability and the same has not been properly considered by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation. He submits that even though the PW.2 states that there is disability of 90%, the Tribunal takes the same at 30%. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under the remaining heads is also extremely minimal and therefore the compensation be reassessed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 though submit that the compensation may be enhanced marginally, she defends the impugned judgment so far as the disability is concerned. The factum of the accident and coverage of the insurance policy is not disputed. 9. A careful perusal of the Tribunal records would indicate that PW.2/Dr.Amresh Deginal, states that he is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 Neurosurgeon and he had operated and treated the petitioner. He states that the petitioner suffers from zero grade paraplegia. In other words, the petitioner has lost sensation in the lower limbs in total. She has no control over the lower limbs and therefore, she has been confined either to the bed or wheelchair. It is pertinent to note that the disability certificate issued by PW.2 at Ex.P12 also depict that there is disability of 90% to the petitioner. The case sheet pertaining to the treatment of the petitioner has been produced at Ex.P15. The MRI scan report, which may be found in the case sheet, discloses that there is burst compression fracture of T7 vertebral body with retropulsion and superior migration of postero-superior fracture fragment with focal cord compression and contusions in the form of cord edema from the level of lower end plate of T5 to body of T8 vertebrae. In other words, the compression fracture of the vertebrae from T5 to T8 has resulted in damage to the nerve system below waist. The medical records of the hospital also speak the same. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is unable - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 to move on her own and she is confined either to the wheelchair or to the bed. The Tribunal without discussing about the functional disability of the petitioner simply states that the PW.2 had stated the disability at 90% and 1/3rd of the same has to be taken and as such, proceeded to calculate the compensation. It is blatant inapplication of the mind by the Tribunal regarding the functional disability. The lady aged about 38 years, who was supporting the family, has been confined to a wheelchair due to paraplegia. 10. This aspect was never considered by the Tribunal and this Court doubts as to whether the Tribunal had any knowledge about the meaning of paraplegia. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner was earning as a coolie and also looking after the family at the age of 38 years, this Court holds that the functional disability cannot be less than 90% and the same is considered at 90%. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 11. The Court must observe that taking 1/3rd of the disability of the limb as the functional disability, though may be sustainable in certain cases, where the limb suffers the disability. But that cannot be a yardstick when there is neurological disability or a disability arising out of head injury. Therefore, reducing the disability by 1/3rd cannot be a yardstick in case of paraplegia and head injuries. 12. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- per month as a notional income since the petitioner was unable to prove her income. The guidelines issued by KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,750/- 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 and therefore they can be adopted as the notional income. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 income on account of disability is calculated by adding future prospects at 40% to the notional income. Accordingly, the multiplicand would be Rs.8,750/- + Rs.3,500/- = Rs.12,250/-. Hence, loss of future income would be Rs.19,84,500/- (12,250 x 12 x 15 x 90%) by adopting multiplier of ‘15’. 13. Considering the fact that the petitioner was unable to cope up with the injuries suffered at least for a period of 6 months, the compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period is calculated as Rs.52,500/- (8750 x 6) 14. In view of the paraplegia suffered by the petitioner, the pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 15. Similarly the compensation under the head of loss of amenities is also enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 16. The compensation under the head of food, nourishment, conveyance, etc is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 17. The compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses do not require any interference. 18. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation as below: Sl.No. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of future earning Rs.19,84,500/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Food and nourishment Rs.20,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.52,500/- 6. Medical Expenses Rs.2,12,586/- Total Rs.24,69,586/- Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,04,586/- Enhancement Rs.17,65,000/- 19. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in-part. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1881 MFA No. 202251 of 2019 (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.17,65,000/- 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 respondent No.2-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 remain unaltered. (v) The Registry to send back the TCR to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33 CT: AK