- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200754 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DEEPAK S/O RAMESH JADHAV, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: KIRANA SHOP, R/O: VIJAYMAHANTESHWAR GALLI BHALKI, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR PIN CODE 585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H.METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANURAJ S/O KAMANNA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALWADI, TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585 401. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, SHARANBASVESHWAR TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101. 3. AMARNATH S/O VAIJINATH, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: KESHARJAWALGA TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585 401. 4. THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, G1, G2, G12 AND G13, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 ASIAN ARCADE, NEAR ANAND HOTEL, S.B. TEMPLE ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TOR 1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2020 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.349/2015 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BHALKI AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.2,28,480/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 30.11.2020 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bhalki (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.349/2015, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Babu H.Metagudda, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted occurrence of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 accident on 15.12.2014, involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-24/TRK-481 on which claimant was pillion rider and another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/K-7588 on Hulsoor- Bhalki road is not in dispute. Claimant sustaining injuries in said accident, taking treatment at Primary Health Centre, Hulsoor and despite same sustaining disability are not in dispute. Claimant filed claim petition against owners/Insurers of both motorcyclists under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. On contest, wherein objections were filed. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Rajshekar Sedamkar as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. On other hand, Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.R1. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by both motorcyclists to extent of 50% each and therefore respective Insurers were liable to pay compensation assessed as follows :- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering `20,000/- 2 Medical expenses `29,002/- 3 Conveyance, attendant charges and nourishment `3,000/- 4 Amenities and unhappiness `8,000/- 5 Loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability `1,68,480/- Total `2,28,482/- 5. Learned counsel submitted that though accident had occurred in year 2014 and claimant had stated his monthly income was of `15,000/- from grocery business, it had taken his monthly income at `6,000/- only which was inadequate as notional income for 2014 was `7,500/-. It was further submitted though claimant had sustained several fractures, Tribunal had awarded only `20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Though claimant had sustained fractures and would have been away from employment for several months, there was no award of compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. Even award of `8,000/- towards loss of amenities was on lower side. On said ground sought for enhancement. 6. On other hand, Sri Mohd.Abdul Quayum and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel appearing for respective - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 Insurers of vehicles involved, opposed appeal. It was submitted that Tribunal had rightly assessed compensation and awarded same, leaving no scope for enhancement. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. 8. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is – “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for ?” 9. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative, for following reasons: 10. Insofar as monthly income, claimant has stated that he was doing grocery business and earning `15,000/- per month but, same was not substantiated with any material, in absence Tribunal assessed it notionally. Notional income for year 2014 is `7,500/-. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in taking it at `6,000/-. Thus, compensation towards loss of future earning would have to be reworked as follows : - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 `7,500 x 12 x 18 x 13% = `2,10,600/-. 11. Claimant sustained fractures of metatarsals and metacarpals, award of `20,000/- towards pain and suffering would be inadequate. Since there are two minor fractures claimant would be entitled to `30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Tribunal has reimbursed entire amount for which medical bills were produced. Therefore, there would be no enhancement. Claimant was inpatient for a period of two days, considering same, award of `3,000/- towards attendance, nourishment etc., would be justified. Claimant sustained fractures of metatarsals of right foot and metacarpals of right hand. PW.2 assessed loss of flexion or extension of right foot at 20% and 300 to movement of right wrist. Considering age of claimant at 19 years, award of `8,000/- towards loss of amenities would be inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance it to `25,000/-. Claimant sustained fractures which would normally take three months to heal. Therefore, claimant would be entitled for `22,500/- (7,500x3) towards loss of income during laid-up period. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 12. Thus, claimant would be entitled for total reassessed compensation as follows: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering `30,000/- 2 Medical expenses `29,002/- 3 Conveyance, attendant charges and nourishment `3,000/- 4 Amenities and unhappiness `25,000/- 5 Loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability `2,10,600/- 6 Loss of income during laid up period `22,500/- Total `3,20,102/- 13. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. 14. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Claimant is held entitled for re-assessed compensation of `3,20,102/- as against `2,28,482/- 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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2945 MFA No. 200754 of 2022 iv. Respondents-insurers to deposit enhanced compensation to extent of their respective liabilities 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 Ct;Vk