- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3109 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MRS. YOGANANDA, S/O LATE PADMANABHA RAO, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-7-11, MAHALAXMI NIVASA, URLANDY, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL KHADAR, S/O ANDUNHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANJAYANAGARA HOUSE, KOORNADKA, KEMMINJE VILLAGE DARBE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K - 574 205. 2. MEENA S. ALVA, PROP. M/S MOOKAMBIKA GAS AGENCY, HARADY, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K - 574 201. 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPPOSITE POPULAR BUILDING, K.S. RAO ROAD, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 MANGALORE - 575 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.89/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.89/2017 dated 28.11.2018. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2016 at about 11.50 a.m. claimant was going on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-21-S-6276 from Bannuru towards Haradi; he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-21-A-9749, by its driver, resulting grievous injuries to the petitioner. He took treatment as inpatient in Mahaveera hospital, Puttur from 15.11.2016 to 26.11.2016. He was asked to take bed rest for 6 months, due to injuries he has been suffering from permanent disability. 4. It is further case of the claimant that, he was aged about 40 years at the time of accident and he was working as a Pigmy Collector in Puttur Mahila Co-operative Society and earning Rs.24,000/-per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards the treatment and he requires Rs.1,00,000/- for future treatment. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 5. Respondent No.1 is driver, respondent No.2 is owner and respondent No.3 is insurer of the offending lorry, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 filed the written statement denying the contentions of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for its determination. 7. The claimant’s to prove his case examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked 22 documents as Exs.P1 to 22 and closed his evidence. Respondent No.3 got marked one document as Ex.R1. 8. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. The Tribunal taken the age of claimant as 40 years, his income as Rs.15,000/- per - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 month, assessed disability at 2% to the whole body and awarded the following amount of compensation: Sl.No Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-. 2. Medical expenses Rs.23,000/-. 3. Food, conveyance, Nourishment and attendant charges etc., Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of earning due to disability Rs.54,000/- 5. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.1,52,000/- 9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 10. The judgment of the Tribunal is not challenged by the respondents. Tribunal held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and claimant had sustained injury, in the accident. These finding are not disputed by the respondents. Hence, no need to reconsider the same. 11. The only question arises for determination is; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 i. "Whether the claimant is entitled for the enhancement of compensation?" 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that amount of compensation awarded on all the heads is on lower side, no amount of compensation awarded towards loss of earning during laid-up period. The claimant had taken treatment as inpatient in the hospital for nearly 15 days. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards attendant charges, special diet etc., is on the lower side. The permanent disability assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side. Claimant is a Pigmy Collector and he sustained injuries to both feet, leading to disability. Therefore the compensation that was awarded under the head loss of amenities is on lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance the same. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 seriously opposes the said submission and contends that the Tribunal has considered the case of the appellant properly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 and awarded the just compensation and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. The Tribunal held that claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 2% to the whole body. It has also accepted that the claimant had taken treatment as inpatient. The injuries sustained by the claimant are mentioned in paragraph No.18 of the impugned judgment. But, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period. It is the contention of the appellant- claimant that he had taken treatment as inpatient for 15 days and looking to the nature of his work, he was unable to attend the duty as a Pigmy Collector, at least for a period of 3 months and he lost his earnings during the said period. The said contention is acceptable. The claimant is entitled for compensation under the head loss of earning during laid-up period. 15. Considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation awarded towards food and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 attendant charges as well as loss of amenities is on lower side, it needs to be enhanced. Considering all these facts, the claimant is entitled for enhancement. Accordingly, the above said question is answered partly in affirmative and pass following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, in MVC.No.89/2017 dated 28.11.2018 is modified; (a) Global compensation of Rs.60,000/- is enhanced in addition to whatever compensation awarded by the Tribunal. iii. Respondent No.3 – insurance company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10576 MFA No. 3109 of 2019 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this award. iv. The enhanced amount of compensation is meager. Therefore, the entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification. v. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK