- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESHA S/O RAMAPPANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, HARADAVALLI VILLAGE, VEERAPUR SARU, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 432. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JAYARAMA MARIYAMALYA S/O MARIYAMALYA, DRIVER CUM OWNER, RESIDENT OF BERANI SHAMAVALLI, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577 126. 2. THE MANAGER, MARUTHI INSURANCE BURAIN PRIVATE LIMITED MAHARASTRA STATE, OFFICE, ROYAL SUNDARAM INSURANCE CO., PRATHAP ARCADE, BUILDING NO.10, JAIL CIRCLE, JAIL ROAD SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201. POLICY NO.03919564 VALID FROM 15-10-2016 TO 14-10-2017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 12/07/2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.04.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.763/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA, 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 T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER This appeal is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC.No.763/2017 dated 04.06.2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-8, Shivamogga. 2. Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The date of accident, injuries suffered, involvement of the vehicle and liability are not disputed. The only question which arises is in respect of quantum of compensation and accordingly, the point is raised as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 i. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and befit in the Principle of just compensation? 4. My answer to the above question is in the 'Negative'. 5. The injuries as per the claimant/appellant is stated in paragraph No.14 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under: ”PW-1 has in his evidence deposed that he has sustained grievous injuries and on account of accidental injuries he is not in a position to do his work as he did earlier and sustained huge loss of income and has incurred huge expenses towards his treatment. PW-1 has produced Ex.P4, which is wound certificate which shows petitioner has sustained 1) abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm, reddish in colour present over the front of right knee 2) superficial laceration, 1 x 0.8 cm present over the front of right leg 10 cm below knee joint associated with swelling of 10 x 8 cm and it is opined that injury No.1 was simple and injury No.2 was grievous in nature and it also shows he has sustained right tibia midshaft closed fracture. Further Ex.P5 is the treatment certificate which shows petitioner has sustained right tibia and fibula shaft fracture and he was admitted to the hospital on 10.01.2017 and he underwent interlocking nailing and discharged on 13.01.2017 and is advised for follow up treatment". - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 6. Though the injured has not examined the doctor, however he has produced the disability certificate Ex.P21 issued by Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics of Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, wherein after examination of the claimant, the doctor found the following disabilities: Following infirmities were noted: 1. He is not able to squat, sit cross legged, climb stairs without support. 2. He has pain in right leg on walking for a distance of 500 mts. 3. He has 15 degree loss of flexion in right knee. 4. He has tenderness in right tibia on palpation. 5. Recent radiograph shows union of 3 corticees in right tibia shaft with implant institu. Because of this, he has 26% (Twenty six percent) permanent physical impairment of right lower limb which is interfering with his daily activities (based on the Formula as per "The Gazette notification of India, Part-II-Section 3(ii), New Delhi, January 5th 2018). Further he may need implant removal at later date in case of any implant rotated complications, cost of which will be around Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand). 7. The Tribunal after considering the material on record proceeded to award compensation: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 1. Towards pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses Rs.50,883/- 3. Towards loss of income during laid up period Rs.16,000/- 4. Towards attendant charges and food and nourishment Rs.20,000/- Total 1,16,883/- The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,16,883/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,17,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent. 9. Sri. Ganapathi, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the appellant is a middle aged man about 45 years, who is an agriculturist suffered injuries to right tibia and fibula shaft fracture and underwent interlocking nailing. He was discharged on 13.01.2017. Subsequently, he followed up treatment for suitable time as per Ex.P20. Wherein several dates mentioned regarding the follow up treatment. He further submits that though doctor was not examined but fact remains that the doctor, who has treated the injured-claimant has issued disability certificate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 dated 07.09.2018, wherein he has clearly stated the contention of the injured-claimant. He further submitted that the appellant is an agriculturist, requiring constant labour in the field, the fracture injuries suffered has reduced his working capacity as an agriculturist in the field. He further submitted that, though there are no documents produced regarding the proof of income, however, the income as per the notional income fixed by the KSLSA for the year 2017 is Rs.11,000/- p.m. and submitted to consider the same as the income of the claimant as against Rs.8,000/- considered by the Tribunal, which is on the lower side and seeks to re-determine the compensation. 10. On the other hand, Sri. Ravi S. Samprathi, learned counsel for respondent - Insurance Company vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellant stating that the Tribunal has properly assessed the compensation and does not call for interference. 11. Though the injured-claimant has not examined the doctor the fact remains that the treatment certificate and the disability certificate produced at Exs.P20 and P21 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 clearly shows the injuries, the treatment undergone and the disability he has suffered. Taking note of the disability certificate issued by treated doctor at Kasturba Hospital, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 26% to the particular limb, 1/3rd of the same comes to nearly 9% and same is taken at 9%, which does not require any interference. 12. Though the Tribunal at paragraph No.17 of the judgment has discussed regarding Exs.P22-24, which are medical bills incurred by the appellant, however, the Tribunal has not considered the amount spent in those medical bills, which comes to Rs.14,000/-. The Tribunal has failed to take note of the same as such same requires consideration at the hands of this Court. The Tribunal failed to take note about the fact that the appellant requires operation for removal of implants. The learned counsel appearing for Insurance company has gone through the Medicinal certificate at Exs.P22-24 and stated that there is specific expenses incurred by the appellant to an extent of Rs.14,000/- towards removal of implants in addition to Rs.50,883/- as has been considered by the Tribunal. In view of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 the same, the amount spent for removal of implants requires consideration. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not properly considered the case of the claimant for awarding the compensation compared to the injuries, the disability suffered and period of treatment as in-patient as well as out-patient. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the appellant has underwent interlocking nailing surgery, which requires removal of implants. The Tribunal failed to consider these aspects. In view of the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be re-determined. Accordingly, this Court proceed to re-determine the compensation under each head as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Pain and sufferings 50,000 2. Medical expenses (Rs.50,883 +14,000) 64,883 3. Loss of income during laid up period 22,000 4. Attendant charges and food and nourishment 20,000 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 5. Future medical expenses 20,000 6. Loss of future income (11,000x12x9%x14) 1,66,320 Total 3,43,203/- Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a total compensation amount of Rs.3,43,203/-, as against Rs.1,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 04.06.2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT-8, Shivamogga is hereby modified and enhanced from Rs.1,17,000/- to Rs.3,43,203/- the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,26,203/- carries interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15921 MFA No. 641 of 2020 iii. Respondent No.2- Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16