- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 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.200173/2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MEGHAVATI W/O PRAKASH, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O VILLAGE HONADDI, TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585 402. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AYYUB S/O ISMAIL SAB, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: OWNER-CUM-DRIVER, R/O # 7-21, VILLAGE ALIAMBER, TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585 402. (OWNER OF BAJAJ THREE WHEELER BEARING REGN. NO. KA-38/8820). 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BASAVASHREE COMPLEX, NO.8-10-268 TO 373, 1ST FLOOR, BEHIND GANESH MAIDAN, STADIUM ROAD, BIDAR-585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV., FOR R2; R1-V/O DTD. 23.01.2025, NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 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 18.08.2021 PASSED BY THE MACT AND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BIDAR, IN MVC NO.127/2020. 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) 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 and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18.08.2021 in MVC No.127/2020 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Bidar, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner/claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant is that on 05.09.2019 when he was proceeding in an auto - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-38/8820, the driver of the said auto rickshaw drove the same in rash and negligent manner and lost control over it, resulting in it turning turtle, due to which, petitioner sustained fracture of right humerus and few other minor injuries. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Bidar. The jurisdictional Police registered the case in Crime No.87/2019 and after investigation filed charge-sheet as against the driver of the auto rickshaw. Claiming that she was aged 29 years at the time of accident and working as labourer, she prayed for just compensation before the Tribunal. 5. The petition was opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary and both of them denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It is contended that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and that she was working as and as such the petition liable to be dismissed. The respondent No.2 contended that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to 13 were marked. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. After hearing both the sides, the tribunal held the functional disability of the petitioner at 5% and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,95,185/- under the following heads. Heads Award by the Tribunal Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Medical, Attendant and Incidental charges Rs.12,000/- Laid up period charges Rs.22,000/- Loss of earnings Rs.1,05,600/- Loss of basic amenities Rs.15,000/- Medical expenses Rs.10,585/- Total Rs.1,95,185/- 7. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that PW2 has assessed the disability at 27% to the right upper limb and the Tribunal assessed functional disability at 5%. It is contended that the petitioner was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 earning as a labourer and therefore, the right hand being a dominant extremity, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 5% is not proper and correct. Therefore, he seek re- assessment of the compensation amount. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would defend the impugned judgment saying that the Tribunal has considered all the required parameters and it has rightly assessed compensation amount. Therefore, no enhancement is required and as such the appeal is liable to be rejected. 10. A careful perusal of the records made available to the Court would show that the petitioner was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident and she had suffered fracture at the junction of the middle and distal 1/3rd of shaft of right humerus. The nature of the treatment was conservative. She was inpatient for 2 days on two occasions. The PW2 in his testimony as well as in the disability certificate at Ex.P8 states that the range of motion of the shoulder has been reduced, muscle strength has been - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 reduced and such disability is to the extent of 11%. He states that the mobility component is 18% and stability component is 11% and therefore, there is a disability of 27%. The Tribunal has not stated any reasons as to why the physical disability stated by PW2 has resulted in functional disability of 5%. In para 22, it assess the disability and come to the conclusion that such disability is 5%. It is pertinent a note that the petitioner is a lady aged 29 years working as a labourer and she has suffered the fracture of the right humerus resulting in a physical disability of 27%. The resultant effect on her functionality would definitely be impaired on account of the injury. It appears that the Tribunal failed to notice that the right hand being the dominant extremity, the component of the functional disability on that account was not taken into consideration. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the functional disability of the petitioner would be 11%. 11. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any evidence regarding the income, notional income has to be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 considered. It has assessed the notional income at Rs.11,000/-. 12. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect of the settlement of the claims arising out of the motor vehicle accidents before the Lok Adalath prescribes the notional income at Rs.13,250/- p.m. for the year 2019. In umpteen number of cases, this Court has held that the said guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is held to be Rs.13,250/- p.m. 13. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant that the date of birth as per the Aadhaar card is 01.01.1989 and the accident had occurred in the year 2019 and therefore, the age of the petitioner is 30 years as on date of the accident. The wound certificate and all medical records would show that she is aged 29 years. However, the Tribunal has taken the age at 31 years which is incorrect. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 14. On perusal of these, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was aged about 29 or 30 years, in either case the multiplier being 17. Hence, the loss of income due to disability is calculated as Rs.13,250/- x 12 x 17 x 11% = Rs.2,97,330/-. 15. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.13,250 x 3 = Rs.39,750/- towards the loss of income during 03 months of laid up period. 16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, medical and attendant charges, and medical expenses do not require any enhancement. 17. The Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. The same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,19,665/- under following heads. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- 2 Medical, Attendant and Incidental charges Rs.12,000/- Rs.12,000/- 3 Laid up period charges Rs.22,000/- Rs.39,750/- 4 Loss of earnings Rs.1,05,600/- Rs.2,97,330/- 5 Loss of basic amenities Rs.15,000/- Rs.30,000/- 6 Medical expenses Rs.10,585/- Rs.10,585/- Total Rs.1,95,185/- Rs.4,19,665/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.1,95,185/- Total enhancement Rs.2,24,480/- 18. In the result, the appeal deserve 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.2,24,480/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. (iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount (determined by Tribunal and by this Court) within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2274 MFA No. 200173 of 2022 (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS, SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: AK``