- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203882 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: AYYUB S/O LALAHAMD BUTALER, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: SKILL LABOUR, NOW NIL, R/O NAIKWADI GALLI, AKKALKOT, TALUKA AKKALKOT, NOW RESIDING AT JUMMA MASJID ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ALLABAKSH S/O BHASHA SAB, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 146/A, MATAKI, TQ. ALAND, DIST. GULBARGA-585 302. 2. THE LEGAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 19.03.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-V., VIJAYAPURA, IN MVC NO. 194/2021. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.194/2021 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura dated 09.08.2023, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 05.06.2020 at about 7.00 p.m., when the petitioner and his friend were going by walk towards Dalal Photo Studio at Akkalkot, near Nimgaon Circle a Car bearing No.KA-25/P-0897 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner and his friend. The petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 fell down and sustained fracture of left proximal tibia, left femur, right distal radius with crush injury. He was shifted to Rural Hospital, Akkalkot and then to Wellness Hospital at Solapur. Contending that the petitioner was aged 30 years, working as Carpenter in production of furniture, there being functional disability, filed claim petition against the owner and insurer of the Car. 3. On being served with the notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and the respondent No.2 alone has filed the written statement. 4. The respondent No.2 contended that there was no such accident and the driver had violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not having any driving licence and the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1. The doctor who treated the petitioner was examined as CW1. Ex.P1 to 14 and C1 to 5 were marked in evidence. No evidence was led by respondents. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 6. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under different heads as below: 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- 2. Medical bills incurred and future medical expenses, attendant, conveyance, Nourishing food, and other incidental expenses Rs.3,21,203/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period. Rs.29,000/- 4. Loss of future income on account of permanent disability Rs.2,37,600/- 5. Loss of Amenities, Life comforts and expectancy of life. Rs.10,000/- Total Rounded off to Rs.6,17,803/- Rs.6,17,800/- 7. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. The arguments by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and respondent No.2 were heard. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly regarding loss of future income on account of disability and the medical expenses is not properly assessed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that though the CW1 stated that there is a disability of 35%, the Tribunal considered by the same at 9%. He submitted that due weightage has to be given to the treated doctor. He - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 submits that the medical bills worth to the tune of more than Rs.7,00,000/- were produced but the Tribunal without any reason, reduced the same to Rs.3,21,000/-. Hence, he seeks re- assessment of the compensation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability at 9% and that after due scrutiny, the medical expenses of Rs.3,20,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. She submits that compensation awarded is adequate and do not require any enhancement. 10. This Court must observed that though a contention was raised by the insurance company that the FIR was registered after delay of 3 days, the Tribunal after considering the evidence, held that there are no reasons to believe that the accident is doubtful. Such finding of the Tribunal is not in dispute. The involvement vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2, due coverage of the insurance as on the date of accident are not in dispute. 11. A perusal of the records would indicate that the petitioner had suffered (i) fracture of the left femur, (ii) fracture of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 comminuted fracture of left tibia, (iii) compound fracture of left metatarsals, (iv) fracture of right distal radius. He also suffered avulsion injury. There were two surgeries conducted on him. The discharge summary at Ex.P9 and 10 issued by Wellness Specialty Hospital, would establish the same. The CW1, who is Orthopedic Surgeon in the said Hospital, states that the petitioner needs support to walk, cannot squat, cannot standup on his own and therefore, he has disability of 35%. The cross examination, further elucidates the treatment given to him and the difficulty faced by the petitioner. 12. Though the petitioner states that he is a Carpenter engaged in production of furniture, there is no documentary evidence which would establish the same, so also there is no conclusive proof of his income. Therefore, no fault can be found in respect of the Tribunal adopting notional income of the petitioner at Rs.13,750/- per month. 13. So far as the disability is concerned, the testimony of the CW1 though states the physical disability at 35%, the functional disability assessed by Tribunal is at 9%. It is settled principle of law that the disability stated by a treated doctor would be on higher - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 pedestal than the testimony of the doctor who only assessed the disability. A perusal of the impugned judgment would not show how it translated 35% physical disability as 9% functional disability. Considering the fact that the petitioner was a Carpenter engaged in production of furniture, aged about 31 years, the skill level definitely gets a dent by above injuries. This Court considered such functional disability at 20%. 14. Consequently, the loss of future income on account of permanent disability is calculated as Rs.13,750/- x 12 x 16 x 20% = Rs.5,28,000/-. 15. Considering the nature of the injuries, it can safely be said that he was unable to resume at least for a period of 4 months. Hence, loss of income during laid up period is calculated Rs.13,750/- x 4 = Rs.55,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. They are enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 17. So far as medical expenses are concerned, a careful scrutiny of the bills produced would show that there are some bills which do not contain the dates. By excluding such bills, the total admissible amount under the bills would be Rs.7,22,068/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment and food etc. Considering the petitioner was inpatient from 05.06.2020 to 04.07.2000 and 08.02.2021 to 24.02.2021, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.45,000/- under this head. 18. In the result, the petitioner is entitled a total compensation of Rs.14,20,068/- under the following heads. Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical bills incurred and future medical expenses Rs.3,11,203/- Rs.7,22,068/- 3 Attendant, conveyance, Nourishing food, and other incidental expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.45,000/- 3 Loss of income during laid-up period. Rs.29,000/- Rs.55,000/- 4 Loss of future income on account of permanent disability Rs.2,37,600/- Rs.5,28,000/- 5 Loss of Amenities, Life comforts and expectancy of life. Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.6,17,800/- 14,20,068/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.6,17,800 Total enhancement Rs.8,02,268/- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2180 MFA No. 203882 of 2023 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,02,268/- 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 No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest, within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) The deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount is as per the order passed by the Tribunal. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT: AK