- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 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.200117/2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: HULEPPA @ HULLESH S/O JAGANNATH, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: KIRANA SHOP & AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE MENTABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 402. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHESH S/O VAIJINATAH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O VILLAGE NEMTABAD, TQ. BIDAR-585 402. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OFFICE NO.8-9-265/313, 1ST FLOOR, PADMA KUNJ COMPLEX, ABOVE IDBI BANK, UDGIR ROAD, BIDAR-585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE, FOR R2; R1-V/O DTD. 27.01.2022 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.11.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT BIDAR, IN MVC NO.34/2021. 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) 1. Though this matter is slated for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, and perused the material available on record. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.11.2021 passed in MVC No.34/2021 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bidar, (for short ‘the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 Tribunal’) the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant is as below: a) On 05.06.2019 while he was pillion rider on the motorcycle of respondent No.1, bearing No.KA-38/S-7935 insured by respondent No.2, he met with an accident and suffered crush injury to the right foot. He was admitted to Guru Nanak Hospital, Bidar, and due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has sustained disability, which resulted in economic disability, as he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as an Agriculturist and as well as by some business. Hence, he approached the Tribunal claiming the compensation. b) On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 alone filed its written statement. In the written statement, respondent No.2 denied any negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, denied the age, income and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 occupation of the petitioner and also termed the compensation claimed as excessive, imaginary and untenable. It was contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the rider of the motorcycle and therefore, the petition be dismissed. c) On the basis of the contentions of the parties, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked in evidence. The Doctor, who assessed the disability, was examined as PW2. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. d) After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,23,425/- under different heads as below: 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical attendant and other incidental charges Rs.18,000/- 3 Loss of laid up period charges Rs.20,000/- 4 Medical Charges Rs.87,625/- 5 Loss of basic amenities Rs.15,000/- 6 Loss of earnings Rs.1,42,800/- Total Rs.3,23,425/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- petitioner submits that the petitioner had sustained crush injury of the right foot, resulting in fracture of 4th and 5th metatarsal of right foot with fracture of phalanx of 2nd toe, resulting in the disability to him. It is submitted that the petitioner was running a Kirana shop and was also an agriculturist and therefore, the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 7% is incorrect and the same needs to be enhanced. It was submitted that the physical disability of the limb stated by the PW2 being 25%, the Tribunal failed to assess the functional disability. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no need for enhancement. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 8. A perusal of the Wound Certificate produced at Ex.P6 would show that the petitioner had sustained fracture of the 4th and 5th metatarsal with fracture of the proximal phalanx of 2nd toe and it was compound fracture and crush injury. The Discharge Summery produced at Ex.P7 also shows the same and the nature of the treatment is shown to be by K-Wire fixation for the 4th and 5th metatarsal. He was treated as inpatient from 05.06.2019 to 14.06.2019. 9. The PW2 in his testimony as well as in Disability Certificate at Ex.P8 has stated by there is disability to the extent of 8% on mobility component and 18% on stability component. He states that with difficulty in standing and climbing stairs etc., the muscle strength has mild tenderness. A careful perusal of the testimony of the PW2 and the Disability Certificate at Ex.P8 shows the same. This Court is of the view that the petitioner being a person aged about 28 years, has to suffer the said injury for the rest of his life and as such, the functional disability has to be taken at 9%. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 10. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.13,250/- for the year 2019. 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 notional income of the appellant-petitioner is accepted as Rs.13,250/- per month. Accordingly, the loss of future income on account of permanent disability is calculated at Rs.13,250/- x 12 x 9% x 17 = Rs.2,43,270/-, by adopting multiplier of ‘17’ for the age of 26 years. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.87,625/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards medical attendant and other incidental charges. The same are just and proper and do not call for any enhancement. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 12. So far as loss of amenities in life is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period, the same is recalculated for three months at Rs.13,250/- x 3 = Rs.39,750/-. 14. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,58,645/- as below, against Rs.3,23,425/- awarded by the Tribunal: Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.87,625/- Rs.87,625/- 3 Loss of income due to permanent physical disability Rs.1,42,800/- Rs.2,43,270/- 4 Medical attendant and other incidental charges Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/- 5 Loss of amenities in life Rs.15,000/- Rs.30,000/- 6 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.20,000/- Rs.39,750/- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 Total Rs.3,23,425/- Rs.4,58,645/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.3,23,425/- Total enhancement Rs.1,35,220/- 15. 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 impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,35,220/- 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. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2263 MFA No. 200117 of 2022 (v) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding deposit and release of the compensation amount, remain unaltered. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT: AK