- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103865 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL S/O. DODDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT: 29 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O: NAVALAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, NOW RESIDING AT KUNIKERI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI A.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HABIBUL REHMAN S/O. ABDUL RASHID, AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KA-01/C-9095, R/O: VILL BHIKANPUR VILLAGE, POST: CHHALET TEN KANTH, DIST: MORADABAD-244001, STATE: UTTAR PRADESH. 2. SRI. S. SUBHADAS S/O. SHANMUGAM, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-01/C-9095, R/O: NO.10, S.S.S BUILDING, 1ST MAIN, A.B. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL MANAGER, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023, (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 74-A, PARANATHY ROAD, NAMAKKAL DIVISION, TAMILNADU-637001). …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE AND SRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE AND SMT. ASMA N.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2016, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT KOPPAL IN M.V.C NO.199/2015, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, challenging the judgment and award dated 26.08.2016, passed in MVC No.199/2015, by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Koppal2. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of claimant that, on 31.10.2014, when he was riding his motorcycle and came near bus stand of Koppal on NH-63, a tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA- 01/C/9095, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle of claimant, causing the accident in question, whereunder, the claimant sustained crush injury to his right leg. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident, the claimant instituted claim proceedings arraying the driver, owner and 1 Hereinafter referred as to ‘M.V. ACT’ 2 Hereinafter referred as to the ‘Tribunal’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 insurer of the tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA- 01/C/9095 as respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively before the Tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal and did not contest the proceedings. The respondent No.3/insurer entered appearance through their counsel, filed statement of objections and contested the claim proceedings. 4. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and a doctor as PW.2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P27 have been marked in evidence. The representative of insurer was examined as RW.1. Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 have been marked in evidence. 5. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 26.08.2016, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of ₹8,34,615/- together with interest at 6% per annum and directed the respondent No.3/insurer to pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded, the claimant has filed the present appeal. 6. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and liability are not under challenge and the insurer has satisfied - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by depositing amount awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the only aspect that is to be considered in the present appeal is with regard to the adequacy of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel Sri. A.B. Patil, appearing for the appellant/claimant, submits that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of claimant in terms of the Service Certificate (Ex.P12) and further erred in not considering that the claimant had a permanent job. It is contended that the claimant was working as ‘Monitor’ in the Child Development Project Officer3 office, Yelburga. It is further contended that the right leg of claimant was amputated below the knee and hence the claimant ought to have been awarded a higher compensation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Preeti Shashank, appearing for respondent No.3/insurer, contends that the Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income of claimant, since the claimant has failed to produce any records to 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CDPO’ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 demonstrate that he had a regular job. It is further contended that the Service Certificate (Ex.P12), merely discloses that the claimant was working as ‘Monitor’ in UNICIEF on a contractual basis and was paid an honorarium and not any regular salary. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and material on record including the records of Tribunal have been perused. 10. The question that arises for consideration is ‘whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced?’ 11. In the claim petition, the claimant has averred that he was working as ‘Monitor’ in CDPO office at Yelburga. In the affidavit, by way of examination in chief, the claimant has deposed that he was working in the office of CDPO, Yelburga as ‘Monitor officer’ under the world scheme of the UNICIEF and his duty was to visit Yelburga taluk and monitor the work of Child Development project in Anganawadi Centers. Ex.P12 is the Service Certificate, dated 01.04.2015, issued by the Child - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 Development Officer, which discloses that claimant was employed from 04.2.2013 to 31.10.2014. Ex.P12 discloses that claimant was liable to be paid ₹15,000/- in the year 2013 and ₹20,000/- for 11 months in the year 2014. It is pertinent to note that accident occurred on 31.10.2014, after expiry of 10 months. The claimant has not adduced any other oral or documentary evidence apart from Ex.P12, to demonstrate that he was working in a permanent job. No documents have also been produced to demonstrate the educational qualification of claimant. In view of the same, it is just and proper that the income of claimant is required to be re-assessed as notional income as per the income chart that is being followed for settlement of claims in the Lok Adalat conducted by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and having regard to the date of the accident, the income of claimant is re-assessed at ₹7,500/- per month. 12. The doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has deposed that claimant has sustained disability of 50% to the right leg. The Tribunal has also, noticing the material on record, assessed the physical permanent disability of claimant at 50% to the whole body, which is found to be correct. 40% future - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 prospects are required to be added to the income of claimant, while assessing the loss of future earning capacity. Hence, the income for the purpose of loss of future earning capacity is (7,500 + 40% = 7,500 + 3,000) ₹10,500/-. The claimant was aged 28 years old at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 17, is just and proper. 13. The compensation under various heads is re- assessed as follows: 13.1 Loss of future income due to disability is re- assessed as under: (10,500 x 12 x 17 x 50%) = ₹10,71,000/- 13.2 The claimant was treated as an impatient for 47 days and the right leg of claimant was amputated below the knee. It is just and proper that pain and suffering be reassessed at ₹60,000/- as against ₹10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13.3 Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹1,60,755/- towards medical expenses, which are as per the actual bills, is just and proper. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 13.4 Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and period of treatment and the fact that claimant was impatient for 47 days, it is just and proper to award a sum of ₹30,000/- towards food, nutrition, diet and attendant charges as against ₹9,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13.5 Having regard to the nature of injuries and the resultant disability, it is just and proper to award a sum of ₹50,000/- towards loss of amenities. 13.6 Having regard to the period of treatment, the laid up period is taken as four months and a sum of ₹30,000/- (7,500 x 4) is awarded towards loss of income during the period of treatment as against ₹20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13.7 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹50,000/- towards cost of purchase of artificial leg. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the quotation dated 17.03.2016 (Ex.P22) for right Transtibial prosthesis, which discloses that the cost of a prosthesis leg for claimant is ₹2,54,940/-. However, it is relevant to note that Ex.P22 is only a quotation and there is no material on record to demonstrate - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 that claimant has purchased an artificial leg. It is further relevant to note that the claimant has not adduced evidence of any witness to demonstrate the cost of artificial leg. However, having regard to the fact that, the right leg below the knee of claimant has been amputated, keeping in mind the fact that claimant is required to fix an artificial leg to his right leg, it is just and proper that a sum of ₹1,00,000/- be awarded towards cost of purchase of artificial leg. 13.8 The claimant is aged 28 years and is unmarried. The injuries sustained in the accident will definitely affect his marriage prospects. Keeping in mind the compensation awarded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for loss of marriage prospects in the cases of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another4 and Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Others5, it is just and proper to award a sum of ₹1,50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. 14. Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows: 4 (2022) 7 SCC 738 5 (2020) 4 SCC 413 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 Sl.No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (₹) Amount awarded by this Court (₹) 1. Pain and sufferings 10,000.00 60,000.00 2. Medical expenses 1,60,755.00 1,60,755.00 3. Loss of future income due to disability 5,84,460.00 10,71,000.00 4. Cost of purchase of artificial leg 50,000.00 1,00,000.00 5. Loss of amenities, nutrition, diet and attendant charges 9,400.00 ------- 6. Loss of amenities ------ 50,000.00 7. Towards food, nourishment, diet and attendant charges ------ 30,000.00 8. Loss of income during laid up period 20,000.00 30,000.00 9. Loss of marriage prospects ------ 1,50,000.00 Total 8,34,615.00 16,51,755.00 15. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹8,17,140/- (₹16,51,755 - ₹8,34,615) together with interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly, the question framed for consideration is answered in the ‘affirmative’. 16. In view of the aforementioned, the following: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part; ii) The judgment and award dated 26.08.2016, passed in MVC No.199/2015, by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Koppal, is modified to the extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹8,17,140/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. iv) Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) After deposit, the enhanced compensation with accrued interest shall be disbursed to the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB MFA No. 103865 of 2016 appellant/claimant as per the award of the Tribunal. vi) Registry to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith. vii) Draw modified award accordingly. viii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13