- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201543 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: GURU S/O CHANDAPPA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: EX. CLEANER, R/O CHINTALKUNTA, NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHEEKAL AHMED S/O BASHEER AHMED, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER, R/O 3-5-49/9, ANDOON QUILLA, RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D. NO. 12-10-97/57, ABOVE ALLAHABAD BANK, NEAR GOVIND RAO PETROL BUNK, RAICHUR-584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 15.09.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR IN MVC NO.173/2019. 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) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.09.2021 in MVC No.173/2019 by the learned Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge & MACT, Raichur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the appellant-petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The fact that the petitioner was discharging his duty as a cleaner in lorry bearing No.KA-37/2345, and on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 09.09.2017 the lorry was driven by one Bandenawaz is not disputed by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company before this Court though it was disputed before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal held that on 09.09.2017 at about 3:30 p.m. the said lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner, near Yermarus caused the accident resulting in injuries to the inmates of the lorry. The petitioner, who was cleaner in the said lorry also suffered injuries and he was immediately shifted to the RIMS Hospital, Raichur and thereafter, he was referred to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, where again they advised to take the treatment in any general Hospital and accordingly he was admitted to KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru. The petitioner contended that he having suffered the injuries is entitled for compensation from the owner and insurer of the lorry. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- petitioner would submit that the petitioner had sustained head injury and therefore he was taken to NIMHANS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 Bengaluru, but however the said head injury was not found to be severe, which has resulted in any disability. However, he contends that petitioner had also suffered fracture of the left femur, which was treated with IMIL nailing and therefore there was disability to the petitioner. He contended that the assessment of the disability was not made through an expert and no such evidence was lead before the Tribunal. Even though the schedule to the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned that one Dr.Kothari has been examined as PW.2, no such witness was examined before the Tribunal. He submits that the petitioner being a cleaner on the lorry, aged about 27 years has suffered the disability and therefore he seeks adequate compensation. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 there is no need for any indulgence by this Court. He submits that when there is no evidence regarding disability, compensation on the ground of disability cannot be awarded. 7. On careful perusal of the Tribunal records, it is evident that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering and the loss of income during laid up period is adequate and no indulgence is required in the same. 8. The receipts for purchasing the medicine and the hospital bills show that the petitioner had spent Rs.43,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- without mentioning the reason for reducing the same. Therefore, to cover up all the medical expenses, for which the petitioner could not produce any bills, a sum of Rs.45,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of medical expenses. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 9. The petitioner had to take treatment at NIMHANS and KIMS, Bengaluru as may be seen from the case sheet of the KIMS Hospital summoned at the instance of the respondent-Insurance Company, therefore, the expenses towards food, conveyance and nourishment needs to be enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. 10. As noted supra there is no evidence to show the disability. However, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner had sustained the fracture of the left femur and he being aged about 27 years, had to suffer the said injury for the rest of life. There also appears to be nailing which was done at KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru, therefore, the petitioner needs to be compensated adequately by taking care of any disability. As such, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.80,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life instead of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for following amount of compensation: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 Sl. No Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court 1. Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- Rs.60,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.40,000/- Rs.45,000/- 3. Towards food, attendant, conveyance and other charges Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Loss of earning during laid up period Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 5. Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/- Total Rs.2,05,000/- Rs.2,75,000/- Enhancement Rs.70,000/- 12. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in-part and hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1490 MFA No. 201543 of 2021 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 records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 60 CT: AK