- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200127 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI SHARANAPPA S/O MANAPPA ITAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: MUDBOOL VILLAGE, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI, PRESENTLY R/O: MANDEWAL VILLAGE, TQ: JEWARGI, DIST: KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K.BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHANTHAL S/O LAKSHAMAN, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY, R/O: DANNUR (S), THANDA, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR – 585 328. 2. LEGAL MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., II FLOOR, JP AND DEVI JEMBUKESHWAR ARCADE NO.69 MILLERS, ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2018, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS AT JEWARGI, IN MVC NO.103/2016 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 22.11.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Jewargi, in MVC no.103/2016, appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sharanabasappa K.Babshetty, learned counsel submitted appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted on 08.04.2015, when claimant was riding motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-33/J-3112 on Shahapura-Kalaburagi main road, at about 4.30 p.m., near Madraki cross, driver of lorry bearing registration no.MH-25/B- 9881, drove it in rash and negligent manner and in process of overtaking another vehicle, it turtled. Sugar cane loaded in lorry fell on claimant, due to which he sustained fracture of distal end of left tibia and other injuries. Despite taking treatment at Kamareddy Hospital, Kalaburagi, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability/loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, against owner and insurer of offending lorry. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on all grounds including denial of age, occupation, income, disability as well as allegation of violation of terms and conditions of policy. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence, wherein claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.41. Respondents did not lead any evidence. 5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver, claimant had sustained injuries, permanent physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity and therefore entitled for compensation. It held insurer was liable to pay compensation and assessed as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Towards medical expenses Rs.55,000/- 2 Loss of income during treatment Rs.10,000/- 3 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- 4 Food, conveyance and attendant charges during treatment and laid off period Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.95,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 6. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. 7. It was submitted claimant sustained displaced fracture of distal end of left tibia. However, tribunal awarded meager compensation towards pain and suffering. It was submitted, it also awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses even though implants were required to be removed. It was submitted though claimant had produced wound certificate, discharge summary, medical prescriptions, bills, X-ray films and disability certificate as Exs.P4, P7 to P41 respectively, tribunal did not award compensation towards loss future of income merely on ground of non-examination of doctor. On said grounds sought enhancement. 8. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted tribunal had taken note of entire material and awarded just compensation under respective heads leaving no scope for enhancement and prayed for dismissal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award. 10. From above, it is seen this appeal is by claimant for enhancement of compensation and insurer has not preferred appeal, point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? 11. From above, findings of tribunal regarding occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver, claimant sustaining permanent physical disability and insurer being liable to pay compensation are not in dispute. 12. Insofar as first contention, indeed claimant has sustained displaced fracture of distal end of left tibia which would be major fracture, for which Rs.25,000/- is prescribed, same is awarded. 13. Normally, fractures take about three months to heal, same has to be considered as period of lay-off. Accident occurred in year 2015, notional income for said period is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 Rs.8,000/-. Thus, claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. 14. As per medical records available, there are implants in situ. For their removal claimant has to undergo one more surgery. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. 15. Tribunal has awarded Rs.55,000/- towards medical expenses in complete re-imbursement of medical bills. Same would not invite any enhancement. 16. It is seen tribunal believed and relied on medical records while awarding compensation. When injuries and treatment taken are not disputed, merely on ground that doctor has not examined, tribunal would not be justified in denying compensation towards loss of future income. Taking note of contents of Ex.P4-wound certificate, Ex.P7-discharge summary and Ex.P41-disability certificate, wherein disability of 29% is assessed, it would be safe to consider 7% notionally as functional disability. Since claimant was 25 years of age, multiplier applicable would be 18. Thus, compensation towards loss of future income would be: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 Rs.8,000/- x 7% x 12 x 18 = Rs.1,20,960/-. 17. Therefore, total compensation would be as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Towards medical expenses Rs.55,000/- 2 Loss of income during treatment Rs.24,000/- 3 Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- 4 Food, conveyance and attendant charges during treatment Rs.10,000/- 5 Towards future medical expenses Rs.25,000/- 6 Towards loss of future income Rs.1,20,960/- Total Rounded off Rs.2,59,960/- Rs.2,60,000/- 18. In view of above, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Judgment and award dated 22.11.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Jewargi, in MVC no.103/2016, is modified. iii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- as against Rs.95,000/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3318 MFA No. 200127 of 2021 iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit same before Tribunal within a period of six weeks. v. On deposit, conditions imposed above, deposit and released shall apply to enhanced compensation proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63