- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14967 MFA No. 102521 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102521 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. THIMMAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: EX-PLUMBER, R/O: KRISHNAPUR, BOMMANAHAL MANDALAM, ANANATHAPUR DISTRICT (AP), PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NEAR BRAMAIAH TEMPLE, KAPPAGAL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMANNA B. GAJI S/O. BASAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC BUS BEARING REG.NO.KA-35/A/F-102, R/O: A/P GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 201. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEKRTC KALBURGI, HOSAPETE DIVISION, HOSAPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS FROM LOWER COURT IN M.V.C.NO.526/2013 ON THE FILE OF MACT- XII, BALLARI; MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11- 12-2014 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.526/2013 BY THE MACT-XII, BALLARI BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14967 MFA No. 102521 of 2015 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. The matter was heard on appellant’s side on 03.11.2025. There was no representation on respondent’s side on that day. To give fair opportunity, the matter was ordered to be listed on this day. Heard Sri C. B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 on this day. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Bellary (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) in MVC No.526/2013 dated 11.12.2014. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant sustained crush injury to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14967 MFA No. 102521 of 2015 the left foot which resulted in amputation of the left leg. The appellant, as a plumber, was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month and awarded a very meagre sum as compensation. Learned counsel submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2013 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month and at least the said figure should have been adopted by the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 paid Rs.5,000/- to the appellant for undergoing treatment and hence the same should be deducted out of the total sum which is being awarded as compensation. 5. Having found justification in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14967 MFA No. 102521 of 2015 view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. As the appellant was aged around 25 years by the date of accident, as per the evidence adduced, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 18 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation.1 However, the Tribunal applied multiplier 17. The disability in respect of the whole body assessed by the Tribunal i.e., 70% needs no interference. Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is Rs.10,58,400/- (Rs.7,000 x 12 x 18 x 70%). But, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.6,42,600/- only towards ‘loss of future earnings’. 6. It is not in dispute that due to the injuries sustained, the appellant underwent a surgical procedure and there was amputation below knee of left lower limb. Thus, it can safely be held that the appellant could not 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14967 MFA No. 102521 of 2015 have been in a position to attend his normal pursuits at least for a period of eight months. Therefore, ‘loss of earnings during laid-up period’ comes to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.7,000x8). However, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,500/- only under the said head. 7. Further, the compensation that is granted towards pain and suffering, towards medical expenditure, towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and towards loss of future amenities is grossly low. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive, which can be termed to be just and reasonable, is as follows: Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.) Pain and suffering 40,000.00 Medical expenditure 5,000.00 Towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 15,000.00 Loss of future earnings 10,58,400.00 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14967 MFA No. 102521 of 2015 Loss of income during laid-up period 56,000.00 Loss of amenities in life 20,000.00 Total 11,94,400.00 9. Thus, by all the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.11,94,400/- as compensation. 10. Though learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid to the appellant for treatment, no proof to that effect is produced. Therefore, no deduction can be made out of the sum which the appellant is entitled to receive as compensation. 11. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14967 MFA No. 102521 of 2015 ii. Compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Bellary through orders in MVC No.526/2013 dated 11.12.2014 is enhanced from Rs.6,89,100/- to Rs.11,94,400/-. iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. On deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18