- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201537 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MANJU @ MANJUNATH S/O DAYANAND VADNIKOPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KARAJAGI, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI, NOW AT KANAKADAS BADAVANE, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC BUS DEPOT, HUBBALLI TO DAVANAGERE ROAD, HAVERI-581 110. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED IN MVC Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 NO.1079/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV, VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR. AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.9,67,300/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 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) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.1079/2018 dated 30.07.2021 by learned IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV, Vijayapura, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was traveling in the car bearing No.KA-25/P- 7405, the bus owned by the respondent bearing number KA-27/F-270 came from hind side and dashed to the Car, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 causing the accident. The petitioner sustained fracture of the hip, spinal injuries and he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. The accident was due to the negligence on the part of the bus driver and therefore, the petitioner claimed for adequate compensation. 4. It was contended that the petitioner was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, earning Rs.15,000/- per month by agricultural work and as such he is entitled for compensation. 5. The petition was opposed by the respondent- Corporation contended that there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident was due to the negligence of the Car driver. Therefore, it sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. On the bases of the above contentions, appropriate issues were framed and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 marked. The driver of the bus was examined as RW1, Ex.R1 was marked. 7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,680/- under following heads. 1. Injuries pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- 2. Food, nourishment, special diet Rs.5,000/- 3. Loss of future earning capacity Rs.85,680/- 4. Loss of income during the laid-up period Rs.12,000/- 5. Loss of amenities of life Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.1,32,680/- 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner is before this court in appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the PW2 had stated that there is a disability of 20 to 25% to the right lower limb and 15 to 20% related to the spine. But the Tribunal has considered only one of the disability and it reduced the same to 7% functional disability and has awarded the compensation. He submit that the compensation requires reassessment by this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation submit that the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal is proper and correct and no interference is required. 11. The perusal of the records would show that the police, after the investigation, have filed the chargesheet against bus driver and therefore, the question of liability is not in dispute. The wound certificate produced at Ex.P4 would show that the petitioner had complained of pain over the chest, tenderness and contusion on the right side of the chest, abrasion etc. and severe pain over on the lower part of the back and as such he was referred to higher facility. Later it was found that there was fracture of the inferior ramus of right side of the pubic bone and compression fracture of L5 vertebra. 12. On the basis of the same, PW2 has opined that there is a disability of 20 to 25% to the right lower limb and about 20% to the spine. The Tribunal in the impugned - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 judgment has noticed only the disability of 20% and assessed the functional disability at 7%. 13. On a careful perusal and taking into consideration the evidence regarding the avocation, income and age of the petitioner, the functional disability an account of the two fractures which are mentioned in the injury certificate as well as the testimony of PW2, this Court assess the functional disability at 10%. The monthly notional income considered by the Tribunal do not require any enhancement as it has followed the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In the result, the loss of income on account of disability is calculated as Rs.6000 x 12 x 17 x 10% = Rs.1,22,400/-. Consequently, the appellant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.18,000/- instead of at Rs.12,000/- under the head of loss of income during the laid up period, which is assessed for 3 months. 14. The compensation under the head of pain and suffering awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.20,000/- is on the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 lower side and therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The compensation under the remaining heads do not require any enhancement. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,00,400/-. 15. Under these circumstances, the compensation is re-assessed by this Court and the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,22,400/- 2. Loss of income during the laid up period Rs.18,000/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 4. Loss of amenities in life Rs.30,000/ Total Less: awarded by Tribunal Enhancement Rs.2,00,400/- Rs.1,32,680/- Rs.67,720/- 16. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1772 MFA No. 201537 of 2021 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a compensation of Rs.67,720/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) Respondent-Corporation 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 SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT: AK