- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201217 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAMESH S/O KASHINATH PANCHAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. CARPENTER NOW NIL, R/O UKRI VILLAGE, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A. HAKEEM S/O KARIMSAB, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF INDICA CAR KA.56-M-0179, R/O DHARAMPET, MANTHAL, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585 401. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., DR. RAJSHEKHAR PATIL BUILDING, 10-2/7, P.B. NO. 12, S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 09.12.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN M.V.C. NO. 528/2018, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION. 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) 1. Though the matter is slated for admission, by consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal and heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.528/2018 dated 31.12.2019 by learned II- Additional Dist. & Sessions Court & Addl. MACT, Bidar, sitting at Basavakalyan, the petitioner is before this Court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 in appeal assailing the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 23.05.2018 the petitioner was traveling in the car bearing Reg.No.KA-56/M-0179 and the driver of the car dashed against the roadside stone and the petitioner suffered fracture of right femur and other minor injuries. He was admitted to Vishwankar Hospital for about 7 days where he was underwent surgery of ORIF (open reduction internal fixation) and has spent huge amount. He was also contended that he was a Carpenter earning `1000/- per day and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disability and as such, he is entitled for compensation from the owner and insurer of the car. 4. The respondent No.2 alone appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the claim petition, contending that there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the car and that there were violations of terms and conditions of the policy. It was also alleged that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 petitioner had connived with the owner of the vehicle in order to make unlawful gain and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The Doctor who assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW.2. No evidence was led in by the respondents. 6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under different heads as below: Sl.No. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of future income Rs.2,57,040/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.67,225/- 3. Loss of earning during treatment Rs.18,000/- 4. pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 5. Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.3,67,265/- Rounded off to Rs.3,67,000/- 7. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has failed to assess the disability of the petitioner in a proper way despite the Doctor who had a treated the petitioner was examined as PW2. The PW2 assessed the disability at 42% to the right lower limb and the Tribunal has assessed the same at 14% which is incorrect. He also contends that the notional income adopted by the Tribunal is also on the lower side and therefore there is a need for re-assessment of the compensation amount. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submit that the tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 14% and the notional income at Rs.9,000/- and therefore there is no need for enhancement of the compensation amount. 10. The perusal of the records would reveal that the petitioner had suffered fracture of right femur and he was treated by PW2. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 11. The fact that there was an accident involving the car owned by the respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 and there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car is not in dispute similarly the age of the petitioner is also not in dispute in this appeal. 12. In the words of PW2, there is a disability of 42% to the left right lower limb and the implants were in situ when he examined the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a Carpenter and he had to move to his workplace and impairment in the right leg would definitely result in depleted efficiency and the income thereof. In cases where there is impairment of the movement of a person and when the limbs which fetch income to such persons are affected, it is functional disability which needs to be considered by the tribunal. In a given case, the functional disability need not necessarily be 1/3rd of the physical disability. The functional disability is to be assessed by the tribunal in the light of the physical disability stated by a medical practitioner, the avocation of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 the petitioner; and by assessing as to how the physical disability would translate into the functional disability. 13. Applying the above tests, it is evident that the functional disability of the petitioner need not be 1/3rd of the physical disability. Petitioner being a labourer using his limbs extensively for his movement, the functional disability is assessed by this Court at 16%. This court also notices that it is the upper limbs which are of great importance for a Carpenter. 14. The petitioner has not produced any material to show his income. As such the tribunal has adopted the notional income. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok- Adalat are prescribe a notional income of Rs.11,750/- for the year 2018. In umpteen number of judgments and also in the case of Smt.Mariyamma V/s Suyambulingam in MFA No.7404/2014, dated 06.12.2022, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in a general conformity with the wages fixed under the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 minimum wages act. Therefore, the loss of future income on account of disability is calculated as Rs.11,750/- X 12 X 17 X 16% = Rs.3,83,520/- by adopting a multiplier of 17 for the age of 30 years. 15. As a consequence, by holding that the petitioner was unable to resume his work at least for a period of 3 months, the compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period is calculated as Rs.11,750/- x 3 = Rs.35,250/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.67,225/- towards Medical Expenses, as per the actual, which does not require any indulgence. 17. The PW 2 has stated that the implants are in situ and therefore a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards the future medical expenses, which shall not carry any interest. 18. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and the same needs to be enhanced Rs.30,000/-. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 19. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life, the same needs to be enhanced Rs.30,000/-. 20. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges etc. do not need any enhancement. 21. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,08,995/- under the following heads:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of future income Rs.3,83,520/- 2. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.35,250/- 3. Medical Expenses Rs.67,225/- 4. Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- 7. Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant changes Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.5,75,995/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,67,000/- Total enhancement Rs.2,08,995/- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414 MFA No. 201217 of 2021 22. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Therefore, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,08,995/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. out of which shall not carry any interest from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) 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 SDU,SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61 CT: AK