- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200942 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMMA W/O SHARANABASAPPA KABALAK, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, NOW NIL, R/O KADABUR, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. TABBASUM SULTANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERANNA S/O DEVINDRAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O MAIN ROAD, NEAR RAMLINGA GUDI, FARHATADAB, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585 105. 2. THE LEGAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPP: GESCOM, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 27.10.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 AND AWARD DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHITTAPUR IN MVC NO. 1071/2018 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR. 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 learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 2. The short point that arises in this appeal is whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.03.2021 in MVC No.1071/2018 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT-Chittapur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 4. The fact that the petitioner met with an accident on 25.01.2018 while she was pillion rider on KA- 33/EH-5973 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 and due to negligence of the rider, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in fracture of the right humerus and a few other minor injuries to the minor injuries is not in dispute. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that she was aged 40 years at the time of the accident, working as agricultural labourer and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. After assessing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the notional income is Rs.10,000/- and that she had suffered the disability of 20% and calculated the compensation amount. 6. Now the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner would submit that the Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.10,000/- instead of relying upon the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 Act or the guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalath. She further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Therefore, she seeks reassessment of the compensation. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on perusal of all the material available on record and the compensation being on the higher side, there is no need for enhancement of the compensation. He further submits that the impugned judgment is just and reasonable. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. A careful perusal of records would show that the petitioner had a sustained fracture of the right humerus and PW.2-Dr.V.K.Shettar, who assessed the disability states that the physical disability of the limb is 60%. The Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 20%. It may be seen that the disability to the right upper limb has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 been rightly assessed by the Tribunal and therefore, no indulgence is required in respect of the disability assessed by the Tribunal. 9. So far as the notional income is concerned, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal in its wisdom has assessed the same at Rs.10,000/- per month. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalath is prescribe notional income of Rs.11,750/- for the year 2018. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines of issued by the KSLSA are in a general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, therefore the loss of future income due to disability is calculated as Rs.11,750/- x 12 x 20% x 14 = Rs.3,94,800/- by adopting multiplier of ‘14’ for the age of 40 years. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 10. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.35,000 under the head of pain and suffering; a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of transportation expenses; a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards special diet; and a sum of Rs.3,600/- towards attendant charges; and also a sum of Rs.53,000/- awarded under the head of Medical Expenses do not require any enhancement. 11. As a consequence of the notional income being held at Rs.11,750/-, the loss of income during laid up period is calculated as Rs.11,750/- x 3 = Rs.35,250/-. 12. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of amenities in life. Considering the fact that there was fracture of right humerus, which was treated by ORIF, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to her under this head. 13. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation under the following heads: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 Sl. No. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of earnings Rs.3,94,800/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.35,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.35,250/- 4. Transportation expenses Rs.15,000/- 5. Special diet Rs.15,000/- 6. Attendant charges Rs.3,600/- 7. Medical Expenses Rs.53,000/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- Amount awarded by this Court Rs.5,76,650/- Less the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.5,05,900/- Enhanced amount Rs.70,750/- 14. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in-part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.70,750/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2275 MFA No. 200942 of 2021 (iii) The 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. (v) The Registry to send back the trial court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 61 CT: AK