- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201213 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DHANPAUL S/O MOHAN WAGHMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: MANGER IN ASHIRWAD BAR AND RESTAURANT, KALAMB, R/O: BANGARGA, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI, NOW RESIDING AT TAJ COLONY, BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMCHANDER S/O NARSINGRAO BIRADAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER OF Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 INDICA VISTA CAR BEARING NO.MH-20/BN-6833, R/O: ADARSH NAGAR, BEED, TQ: AND DIST: BEED, NOW RESIDING AT RUDNOOR, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR – 584 101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SANGAMESHWAR COLONY, S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2020 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BASAVAKALYAN IN M.V.C. NO.666/2016, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 10.06.2020 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Basavakalyan (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.666/2016, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanjeevkumar C.Patil, learned counsel for appellant submitted that this appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. Occurrence of accident, involving Insured vehicle, claimant sustaining grievous injuries therein, taking treatment, sustaining physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity as well as liability of Insurer to pay compensation are not in dispute. 3. It was submitted claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, stating that in accident claimant had sustained segmental fracture of shaft of right femur, in-tractions fracture of L/E femur right and fracture of proximal tibia and fibula right apart from other injuries. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 4. To substantiate treatment and disability, claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Sachin T.Vishwekar as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P42. Insurer did not lead any evidence. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driver of insured vehicle and claimant had sustained permanent physical disability. It assessed monthly income of claimant at `9,000/-, determined age as 38 years, considered loss of earning capacity at 15% and awarded compensation as follows : Heads Award of Compensation Medical and hospital expenses `1,07,800/- Pain and sufferings `10,000/- Future loss of earning capacity due to disability `2,43,000/- Loss of income during laid up period `9,000/- Loss of amenities in life `10,000/- Conveyance, nourishment and attendant `10,000/- Total ````3,89,800/- 5. Learned counsel submitted that though claimant sustained four grievous fractures, compensation of only `10,000/- was awarded which was grossly inadequate. It was submitted though claimant had stated that he was working as Manager in a Bar and Restaurant and earning more than `25,000/- per month, it assessed his monthly income at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 meager amount of `9,000/- per month which required enhancement. Though claimant had taken inpatient treatment for 18 days and had sustained fractures, Tribunal erred in awarding only `9,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. It was further submitted PW.2 had assessed permanent disability at 45%. Under such circumstances, award of `10,000/- only towards loss of amenities was grossly inadequate and sought enhancement. It was submitted for inpatient period of treatment of 18 days, award of `10,000/- towards attendance, nourishment etc., would be inadequate and sought for enhancement. 6. Insofar as permanent physical disability concerned, PW.2 – Doctor had assessed it 45% to whole body. Considering fact that claimant had sustained segmental fracture of shaft of right femur apart from two other fractures, assessment of disability, loss of earning capacity at only 15% was inadequate and sought for enhancement. On said ground sought for allowing appeal. 7. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.2 – Insurer on other hand opposed appeal. It - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 was submitted that Tribunal had taken note of injuries sustained, records perused and had rightly assessed compensation same did not call for enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. 9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is – “Whether claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as prayed for ?” 10. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative, for following reasons: 11. Normally, Courts award `25,000/- for major fractures and `15,000/- for minor fractures. In instant case, claimant has sustained two major fractures and one minor fracture. Therefore, award of `10,000/- towards pain and suffering is grossly inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance compensation towards pain and suffering to `70,000/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 12. Tribunal assessed monthly income of claimant at `9,000/-. Though monthly income was claimed to be `25,000/-, there was no material produced to substantiate same. Therefore, assessment made by Tribunal would be justifiable. Since claimant sustained grievous injuries and major fractures and took treatment as inpatient for a period of 18 days, it would be appropriate to consider period of four months as laid- up. Thus, compensation towards same would be `36,000/-. 13. Considering number of fractures and disability sustained by claimant, award of `10,000/- towards loss of amenities would be grossly inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance it to `35,000/-. 14. Tribunal has awarded `10,000/- only towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Taking note of fact that claimant had taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 18 days, it would be appropriate to enhance it to `20,000/-. 15. Insofar as permanent disability and loss of earning capacity, learned counsel for appellant/claimant though - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 vehemently argued that assessment was grossly inadequate, taking note of fact that claimant was working as Manager in Bar and Restaurant would require to walk around to manage it, assessment of only 15% disability/loss of earning capacity by Tribunal would appear inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance it to 20%. Thus, compensation towards future loss of income would be: `9,000 x 12 x 15 x 20% = `3,24,000/-. 16. Thus, claimant would be entitled for total compensation as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Towards Medical & Hospital expenses `1,07,800/- 2 Towards pain and suffering `70,000/- 3 Towards future loss of earning capacity due to disability `3,24,000/- 4 Towards loss of income during laid-up period `36,000/- 5 Towards loss of amenities in life `35,000/- 6 Towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant `20,000/- Total `5,92,800/- 17. There is enhancement of compensation by `2,03,000/-. 18. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2882 MFA No.201213 of 2021 19. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of `5,92,800/- as against `3,89,800/- awarded by Tribunal. iii. Needless to say that claimant is entitled for interest on said amount at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. iv. Respondent-insurer to deposit enhanced compensation with interest before Tribunal within a period of six weeks. v. On deposit, compensation amount shall be released in favour of claimant. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SN/NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 Ct:Vk