- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 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.203798 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: VENKATAREDDY S/O SHIVANNA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O SUNKESHWARHAL, TQ. DEODURGA, NOW R/AT VIJAYANAGAR COLONY, ASHAPUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHEEMANNA S/O MALLESHAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER OF TEMPO CRUISER REG. NO. KA-36/8622, R/O H.NO. 1-4-884, IDSMT LAYOUT, RAICHUR-584 101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, D.N. 12-10-89/1, 1ST FLOOR, ANAGA COMPLEX, NEAR CHANDRAMOULESHWAR CHOWK, LINGASUGUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2; Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 V/O DTD. 16.11.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16-12-2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR IN MVC NO.340/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.13,28,800/- TO RS.28,28,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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 award in MVC.No.340/2021 by learned Principal District and Session Judge and MACT, Raichur, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as below: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 On 24.04.2021, when the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/ET- 8947, the rider of the vehicle though was cautious, a Tempo Trax Toofan vehicle bearing No.KA-36-8622 came from opposite direction and dashed into the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The jurisdictional Police i.e., Raichur Rural Police registered a case in Cr.No.62/21 against the driver of the Tempo Trax and ultimately filed the charge sheet. The petitioner contends that he was an agriculturist and was also running a business of the fertilizers, was aged 57 years at the time of the accident. He contends that he has suffered a head injury in the said accident as well as the fracture of the shaft of right femur and has suffered a permanent disability and therefore, he is entitled for a just and reasonable compensation. 3. On being served with the notices, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed the written statements. Respondent No.1 contended that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 accident had occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle but not that of the driver of the Tempo Trax. It is contented that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were also necessary and proper parties and the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant and imaginary. He denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner also. 4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company reiterated the contentions of respondent No.1 and further contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by respondent No.1 and therefore, the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, the same be examined by the Tribunal. 5. The respondent No.2-insurance company reiterated the contentions of the respondent No.1 and further contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the respondent No.1 and therefore, the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, the same be examined by the Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and evidence was recorded. Petitioner was examined as PW1 and the two doctors who assessed the neurological disability and the orthopedic disability were examined as PW2 and 3. Ex. P1 to 19 were marked. The respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and Ex.R1 and 2 were marked. 7. After hearing their arguments, the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.13,28,800/- under the following heads. 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 2. Medical attendant’s and nourishment expenses Rs.50,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.55,193/- 4. Loss of future income Rs.5,96,062/- 5. Medical expenses and future medical expenses Rs.5,77,460/- Total Rs.13,28,715/- Rounded off Rs.13,28,800/- 8. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner is before this court seeking enhancement of the compensation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 9. The submissions by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 were heard. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has produced the proof in respect of earnings of the petitioner at Ex.P13. These documents show that the petitioner was carrying on the business in the name and style Shri Nandi Agro Agencies and was doing the business of fertilizers. The annual total income from such business is depicted in the four income tax returns which are filed at Ex.P13. It is submitted that the income reflected in returns for the assessment year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, show the income which was prior to the accident. The accident having occurred on 20.04.2021, the income prior to the date of the accident are relevant and the one for the subsequent year shows a decline. Therefore, he contends that the income of the petitioner has to be considered as an average of the three years prior to the date of the accident. Therefore, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 he submit that the calculation of the Tribunal, which took only the minimum income of these three years is erroneous. Hence, he submit that the income of the petitioner assessed by the Tribunal is not proper and correct. 11. His second prong of the argument is in respect of the disability. He submit that the PW2 says a disability of 30% and he assessed only neurological disability. The disability assessed by PW3 in respect of the fracture of the right femur, the PW2 has stated the disability to be 30% and the same was not at all considered by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the functional disability of the petitioner should have been assessed by the Tribunal as a cumulative effect of the neurological disability and the orthopedic disability. This exercise having not been done by the Tribunal, the conclusion that there is a disability of 30% is not proper and correct. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 head of loss of amenities in life and as such the assessment of the compensation has to be done afresh. 12. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- insurance company would submit that the Tribunal is justified in taking the income of the petitioner as per the income tax return for the year 2019- 20 and 2022-23 which is on the lower side. He submit that the disability considered by the Tribunal is also proper and it has considered the disability at 30%. Therefore, he submits that in no way the impugned judgment can be assailed and that there is no need for any reassessment of the compensation. However, he concede that the Tribunal has failed in awarding any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. 13. The first aspect is to consider the income of the petitioner. The income tax returns which are produced at Ex.P13 comprise of the returns filed for the assessment year 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. The date - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 of returns and the total income shown in these returns is mentioned in the below chart. Assessment Year Returns dated Total income 1999-20 19.08.1999 2,20,774/- 2020-21 19.12.2020 4,66,210/- 2021-22 01.09.2021 4,66,205/- 2022-23 11.07.2022 2,13,280/- 14. The above chart shows that for the assessment year 2019-20, the income was Rs.2,20,774/- and thereafter, it had risen to Rs.4,66,210/- for next two consecutive assessment years. Evidently, the accident had taken place on 20.04.2021. In that view of the matter, the returns for the assessment year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 would be relevant. Since the accident had taken place on 20.04.2021, the assessment for the previous financial year would be of relevance. It is also pertinent to note that the income tax return for the assessment year 2022-23 is not of much relevance since it was subsequent to the COVID-19. Under these circumstances, if we take the average income for the assessment year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, it would - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 be Rs.3,84,396/-. Therefore, the monthly income would be Rs.32,033/-. Taking the same at a moderate income, it can safely be said that the petitioner was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. 15. Coming to the disability, the petitioner is before this Court when the matter is heard. He is walking with a walking stick in his hand and is unstable. The perusal of the testimony of the PW3-Dr.Rajendra Kothari would show that he is a consultant Senior Neurosurgeon. He has opined that there is a disability of about 37%. The disability certificate produced at Ex.P-9 show that there is a depleted activity in the petitioner and there is post head injury problems involving giddiness, headache, severe reeling sensation etc. He also states that there is unstable gait. This observation of the PW3 is fortified by the observation made by this Court. 16. So far as the disability on account of the fracture of the femur is concerned, the testimony of the PW2 - Dr.Suman N.V. and the certificate issued by him at - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 Ex.P8 would show that there is 30% disability. The reasons assigned by him are that there is restriction of the movement of the hip joint and the abduction and adduction is also restricted. He opines that there is a 30% disability to the whole body. Though the testimony cannot be accepted to the effect that it is to the whole body, it has to be for the limb only. 17. It is appropriate to note that the fracture of the right femur coupled with the head injury has to be considered to assess the functional disability. On considering the disability of the limb and the neurological disability, this Court is of the view that the functional disability of the petitioner is 40%. 18. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.30,000/- x 12 x 9 x 40% = Rs.12,96,000/-. 19. Consequently, taking the laid up period of the petitioner to be four months, the compensation is awarded as Rs.30,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,20,000/-. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 20. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, attendant charges, medical expenses do not require any enhancement. 21. Though the PW2 has stated that there would be future medical expenses for removal of the rod, contending the cost to be Rs.1,00,000/-, the same is moderately assessed by this Court at Rs.30,000/- and the same would not be carry any interest. 22. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Considering the age of the petitioner, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. 23. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.21,68,460/- under the following heads. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 2 Medical attendant’s and nourishment expenses Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.55,193/- Rs.1,20,000/- 4 Loss of future income Rs.5,96,062/- 12,96,000/- 5 Medical expenses and future medical expenses Rs.5,77,460/- Rs.5,77,460/- 6 Loss of amenities in life -- Rs.75,000/- Total Rounded off Rs.13,28,715/- Rs.13,28,800/- Rs.21,68,460/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.13,28,800/- Total enhancement Rs.8,39,660/- ORDER The petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.21,68,460/- instead of Rs.13,28,800/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2466 MFA No. 203798 of 2023 petition till its realization (excluding interest on a sum of Rs.30,000/-). The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within 02 months from the date of this judgment. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remain unaltered. Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT: AK