- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202592 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MOHAMMED MUNEER @ MUNEERMIYAN S/O CHUNNUSAB, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O: VILLAGE KAMTHANA, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S GEMINI GRAPHICS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.44 AND 45 NAUBAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDAR-585 401. 2. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE VEERBHADRESHWAR CHAMBERS, DOOR NO. 8-10-135/1 AND 1A, OPPOSITE NEHRU STADIUM, BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRESENT BRANCH MANAGER-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 23.02.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.68/2017 ON THE FILE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT BIDAR. 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) Though, this appeal is slated for admission, the same is taken up for disposal with consent of learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No.2. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was driving a Tata Magic Vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-28/TV-1624, from Hyderabad to Kamthana on 05.10.2016 at about 10.30 a.m. near Veterinary College - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 Kamthana, a Tata Goods Tempo bearing No.Regn.No.KA- 38/7470 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 came from opposite and dashed to the said Tata Magic vehicle of the petitioner. As a result, he sustained fracture of femur of the right leg and few other injuries. Bidar Rural Police registered a case in Crime No.80/2016 and filed the chargesheet against the driver of the Goods Tempo. The petitioner was inpatient from 06.10.2016 to 21.10.2016 and he being a driver, has sustained the functional disability and as such he claimed adequate compensation. 4. The petition was opposed by the respondent No.1 contending that the negligence was on the part of the petitioner and that the vehicle being insured with the respondent No.2, any liability has to be fastened upon the respondent No.2-insurance company. 5. Respondent No.2 contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and that there were violation of terms - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 and conditions of the policy by the driver of the goods tempo and therefore, the petition be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the above contention, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the doctor, who assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P15 in evidence. The official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 7. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable and awarded compensation of Rs.2,85,800/- under the following heads. Sl.No. Heads Compensation 1. Medical Expenses Rs.14,600/- 2. Loss of earning during treatment Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.2,11,200/- 4. Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- 7. Loss of expectation Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.2,85,800/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper. He submits that even though PW.2 had stated that there is disability of 44% to the right lower limb on account of the fracture of right femur and patella, the Tribunal even though discussed that 1/3rd of the same has to be taken as functional disability, erroneously calculates the same at 11%. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal has not applied its mind the factual circumstances and therefore, there is need for re-assessment of compensation. He also contended that the amount awarded under the remaining heads is also not proper and correct. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the calculation by the Tribunal is proper and no interference is required. He - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 submits that there is no need for reassessment since the income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.10,000/-, which is on the higher side. However, the liability upon the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation is not disputed. 11. A careful perusal of the available material on record would show that in paragraphs-16 and 17 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal discussed that PW.2 opined that there is 44% disability to the right lower limb on account of the fracture of the right femur. It also observes that the petitioner is a driver by profession. The profession of the petitioner as a driver cannot be disputed, since the FIR itself mentions that he was the driver of the TATA Magic vehicle at the time of the accident. Obviously he is aged 35 years. There being no documentary evidence to prove his income, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jaya Biswal and Others vs. Branch Manager IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., and Another1, and 1 2016 SAR (Civil) 372 SC - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 considered the notional income Rs.10,000/-. Evidently, they said judgment was in respect of a truck driver. 12. It is pertinent a note that in the absence of any sufficient material to show that the petitioner was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal had to fall back on the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, applicable for skilled worker. The guidelines issued by the 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 notional income of the petitioner is assessed at Rs.8,750/-. 13. So far as the disability is concerned, the petitioner being a driver aged about 35 years had sustained fracture of right femur and therefore PW.2 opined that there is disability of 44% to the limb. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 However, how the physical disability of 44% would translate into a functional disability of 11% is not discussed by the Tribunal. The petitioner being a driver, the fracture to the right lower limb definitely affects his ability to perform as a driver. Under these circumstances, the functional disability of the petitioner is assessed by this Court at 18%. 14. As a result, the compensation under the head of loss of future earnings on account of the disability is calculated as Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 16 x 18% = Rs.3,02,400/-. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of earning during laid up period. A fracture would definitely disable a person from performing his duties at least for a period of 3 months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,750/- x 3 = Rs.26,250/- towards loss of income during laid up period. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 18. It is pertinent to note that, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of expectation, it is not known what the said expectation of life is. Therefore, instead of the compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant charges, nutritious food, conveyance, etc., considering the fact that he was inpatient for a period of 15 days. 19. The compensation under the remaining heads i.e. Medical Expenses and future Medical Expenses do not require any enhancement. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 20. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total sum under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads Compensation 1. Medical Expenses Rs.14,600/- 2. Loss of earning during laid up period Rs.26,250/- 3. Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.3,02,400/- 4. Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- 7. Towards attendant, diet, food, conveyance, etc. Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.4,38,250/- Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,85,800/- Enhancement Rs.1,52,450/- 21. In the result, the petition deserves to be allowed in-part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,52,450/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2200 MFA No. 202592 of 2019 date of petition till its deposit (excluding interest over Future Medical Expenses i.e. Rs.20,000/-). (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 stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP,SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38 CT: AK