- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201290 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: AVINASH S/O BASAVARAJ, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MILK VENDING AND AGRI. SUPERVISING (NOW NIL), R/O H.NO.1/119/3, GUNJANOOR, TQ. AND DIST. YADGIR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJAYYA S/O BALAPPA MANYA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS BEARING REG. NO.AP-29/Z-3033, R/O KOSGI, DIST. MEHABOOB NAGAR (TS)-509 001. 2. APSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, O/O REGIONAL OFFICE, APSRTC, HYDERABAD ROAD, VIKARABAD, DIST. RANGAREDDY-501 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. DESHMUKH, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 18.01.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2020 IN MVC NO.150/2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-II AT YADGIR, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL 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) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.150/2018, by learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT Yadgir, dated 30.11.2020, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 06.07.2014 at about 05.45 p.m., when the petitioner was the pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing number KA-03/Q- 2010 and on Yadagir- Mundargi main road, an APSRTC bus - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 bearing No.AP-29-Z-3033 owned by respondent No.2 came from opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained head injuries and he was shifted to Yadagir and thereafter to Chirayu Hospital, Kalaburagi for treatment. In the said accident, the petitioner had sustained head injury with right fronto temporal depressed fracture and he underwent craniotomy. The petitioner contended that he was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident doing milk-vending business and agricultural work, earning Rs.30,000/- per month and therefore, he is entitled for adequate compensation. 4. On being issued with the notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 resisted the petition by filing written statement. They contended that the accident was due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and that he was not having a valid driving license and therefore, the liability has to be fastened upon the rider and the owner of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 the motorcycle. It was contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and they denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1. Ex.P1 to 12 were marked in the evidence. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and no evidence was laid on behalf of the respondents. 6. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- under the following heads. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Loss of laid up period Rs.3,000/- Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- Food and other expenses Rs.10,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,72,107/- Attendant charges Rs.3,000/- Loss of future earning Rs.2,44,800/- Total Rs.4,92,907/- Rounded off Rs.4,93,000/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner would submit that the head injury sustained by the petitioner has resulted in a disability of 40% as per the disability certificate issued by PW2 at Ex.P8. It is contented that the said disability stated by PW2 has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. It is submitted that though the PW2 had stated the disability at 40%, the Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 20%, which is on the lower side. The difficulties mentioned by PW2 and stated in Ex.P8 show that there is a higher disability and therefore, there is a need for reassessment of the compensation. He also submits that the compensation and the remaining heads is also on the lower side. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the Tribunal has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 rightly awarded the compensation by holding the disability at 20% and no interference is required in respect of the same. He defends the imputed judgment, stating that the evidence recorded by the Tribunal do not show any reason as to why the petitioner is to be assessed at a higher disability. The psychiatric disability stated by the PW.2 is not supported by any material and therefore, he defends the impugned judgment. 10. The fact that there was an accident involving the bus owned by respondent No.2, driven by respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Though the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had taken up a contention that the negligence was on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not implead the owner and insurer of the motorcycle. The case being of composite negligence for the petitioner, he is entitled to seek compensation from any of the tortfeasor and as such, the said contention has been rightly decided by the Tribunal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 11. The careful perusal of the discharge summary at Ex.P7, Wound Certificate produced at Ex.P4 would show that the petitioner had sustained comminuted fracture of the right temporal and frontal bone and diffused cerebral edema. The petitioner was inpatient from 06.07.2014 to 21.07.2014 and he underwent a craniotomy during the treatment. During treatment, psychiatric opinion was also obtained as he was restless and had irrelevant speech. The testimony of the PW.2 and the perusal of the disability certificate at Ex.P8 would show that he had observed right side facial paresis around mouth, hand grip is weak, unable to lift weight and there is unstable and cautious gait. Ultimately he opines that due to the brain injury, there are painful neck movements intolerance to hot and humid weather conditions, confusion and heaviness in head, irritability short temperedness, loss of interest and concentration in working, repeated psychiatric help for day-to-day working etc. is impairing the routine physical and cognitive functions. Therefore, he opines such disability at 25% and attributes a 20% weakness of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 right upper limb and lower limb and residual facial paresis. It is pertinent to note that the contention of the petitioner that he was receiving the continuous repeated psychiatric help is not supported by any material. The discharge summary do not mention anything about the facial paresis. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the Tribunal about the functional disability of the petitioner at 20% appears to be slightly on the lower side. Even though the petitioner has suffered some disability on account of the head injury, it doesn't convince this Court since the PW.2 is not a treated doctor and his findings do not have any other material like that of the psychiatric evaluation of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the functional disability of the petitioner who is aged about 26 years and a milk vendor has to be assessed at 25%. 12. The Tribunal has assessed notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 the notional income of Rs.7,500/- for the year 2014. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the ‘loss of future income’ is calculated as Rs.7,500/- X12 X 17 X 25%, that equals to Rs.3,82,500/-. 13. Consequently, the compensation under the head of ‘loss of income during laid-up period’ is to be calculated for a period of 3 months and as such, a sum of Rs.22,500/- (Rs.7,500/- X 3) is awarded to the petitioner. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/- under the head of ‘attendant charges’, ‘food and other expenses’ and ‘conveyance charges’. The ‘conveyance charges’, ‘food and other expenses’ do not need any enhancement. However, the compensation under the head of ‘attendant charges’ has to be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of ‘pain and suffering’ and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 16. The compensation under the head of ‘loss of amenities’ has to be enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. 17. The compensation under the head of ‘medical expenses’ do not need any enhancement. 18. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,87,107/- as below as against Rs.4,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal: Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal (Amount In Rs.) Award by this Court (Amount In Rs.) 1 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 45,000/- 2 Loss of amenities 20,000/- 40,000/- 3 Loss of laid up period 3,000/- 22,500/- 4 Conveyance charges 10,000/- 10,000/- 5 Food and other expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- 6 Medical expenses 1,72,107/- 1,72,107/- 7 Attendant charges 3,000/- 5,000/- 8 Loss of future earning 2,44,800/- 3,82,500/- Total Rounded off to 4,92,907/- 4,93,000/- 6,87,107/- Less: Award by the Tribunal 4,93,000/- Total enhancement 1,94,107/- 19. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed and hence, the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2487 MFA No. 201290 of 2021 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 enhanced compensation of Rs.1,94,107/- 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) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP/NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63 CT: AK