- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5889 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMJINAIK, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O MAGADI RAMANIK, R/A LAMBANIO CASTE, KAREKALLAHATTI, KORATAGERE TALKUK, TUMKUR DIST. C/O DORESWAMYNAIK, UPPARAHALLY, 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN, TUMKUR TOWN - 572 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G. P. NAGABHUSHANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O PUTTASWAMY, R/A NO.204, DURGA ROAD, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DIST - 572 132. 2. ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURNACE CO. LTD., NEW NO. 3, OLD NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 KHADAR NAWAZ KHAN ROAD NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 006. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.610/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No.2 and by consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal though it is slated for admission. 2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award in M.V.C No.610/2011 by learned Fast Track Court-II and MACT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 Tumkur dated 18.06.2011, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 04.02.2011 at about 7.30 A.M while the petitioner was travelling in Maruthi Krupa Bus bearing No.KA-29-6300, on Tumkuru-Madhugiri road, it was driven in negligent manner and there was an accident by hitting the iron rod of the said bus to the petitioner resulting in compression fracture of the L1 vertebra. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Koratagere and he was treated as inpatient for 34 days. Claiming that the petitioner was a milk vendor and agriculturist, aged about 42 years at the time of the accident and that he has suffered permanent disability, claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the bus. 4. The petition was opposed by the Insurance Company contending that the allegations made by the petitioner are incorrect, the compensation is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the driver of the bus. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 Therefore, the Insurance Company sought for rejection of the claim petition. 5. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and exhibit P.1 to P.101 were marked in evidence. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW-2. The respondents did not lead any evidence in the matter. 6. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal held that the respondent No.2- Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.97,122/- under following heads: Sl.No. Nature of the heads Compensation (Rs.) 1 Pain and sufferings 17,000=00 2 Attendant Charges 3,400=00 3 Medical Expenses 29,722=00 4 Lump sum disability 25,000=00 5 Food and Nourishment 5,000=00 6 Future Operation 15,000=00 7 Transportation Charges 2,000=00 Total 97,122=00 Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court in appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 7. On appeal being admitted, the Tribunal records have been secured and perused the same. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low for a compression fracture of the L1 Vertebra, resulting in disability to the lower limbs. The Tribunal failed to consider the disability and calculate the future loss of income due to disability. A sum of Rs.25,000/- under the said head has no meaning and basis for such assessment. Therefore, he seeks reassessment of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent the No.2 submit that though the tribunal was required to consider the structured calculation of the compensation amount, it is submitted that the quantum of the compensation awarded is adequate and there is no need for enhancement. 10. The records reveal that the testimony of the PW-2 coupled with the disability certificate issued by him at Ex.P-99 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 and P-100 show that the petitioner had suffered L1 compression fracture and another simple injury. 11. It was opined by PW-2 that the petitioner cannot do hardwork and labor, unable to walk, unable to do daily activities squat, stand etc., He assessed the spinal disability at 50% and the disability of 90% in respect of the lower limbs. It is pertinent to note that the disability assessed by him for the lower limbs is resultant effect of the spinal injury. Therefore, the calculation of the disability at 90% appears to be flawed. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the functional disability to the lower limbs at 90%, definitely causes inconvenience in his functionality as a milk vendor and agriculturist. The physical labor being one of the livelihoods of the petitioner, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered to be 25%. It is pertinent to note that the physical disability and the functional disability are two different aspects and obviously a medical expert cannot give any opinion in respect of the functional disability, which is always in the domain of the Tribunal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 13. The fact that the petitioner was aged 42 years at the time of the accident is not in dispute and as such the multiplier of 14 is applicable. 14. So far as the notional income is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any acceptable material to show his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be considered. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribes a notional income of Rs.6,500/- for the year 2011. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority are in general conformity with wages fixed under Minimum Wages Act and therefore, they are acceptable. In that view of the matter the loss of future income due to disability is calculated as Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 14 x 25% = Rs.2,73,000/- 15. As a consequence, by holding that the petitioner was unable to resume his regular work atleast for a period of 5 months, the loss of income during the laid up period is calculated as Rs.6,500 x 5 = Rs.32,500/-. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings and the same needs to be enhanced Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life and therefore, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to him under this head. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,400/- under the head of Attendant and charges, Rs.5,000/- under the head of food and nourishment, a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the head of transportation charges. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 34 days in the hospital. Therefore, under the combined head of attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance expenses, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded to him. The PW-2 has stated in his evidence that the petitioner needs a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the future medical expenses. There being no basis for the same, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has to be awarded under this head with marginal enhancement from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under the remaining head the medical expenses of Rs.29,722/- is rounded off to Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 4,55,500/- under following heads: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 Sl.No. Nature of the heads Compensation (Rs.) 1 Pain and sufferings 30,000 2 Attendant Charges, Food and Nourishment and Conveyance expenses 35,000 3 Medical Expenses 30,000 4 Loss of future income due to disability 2,73,000 5 Future medical expenses 25,000 6 loss of amenities in life 30,000 7 Loss of Income during laid up period 32,500 Total: Less: Awarded by Tribunal Enhancement 4,55,500 97,122 3,58,378 17. In view of the above reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part, Hence, the following; ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,58,378/- in the addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its deposit before the Tribunal. iii. The respondent No.2 - Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20625 MFA No. 5889 of 2013 iv. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36