- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH 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.100121 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: K. SATYANARAYANA S/O. K. GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GANGAVATHI-583227, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. G. ADINARAYAN S/O. G.KONDANNA, AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP-21/TY-3108, R/O: EDAVULAPARTHI VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL-515701, DIST: ANANTAPUR, ANDRA PRADESH STATE. 2. MEKAL MALLIKARJUNA S/O. M. KAMBAGIRI RAMUDU, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP-21/TY-3108, R/O: 1-162 NEEREDUCHERLA PEAPULLY, KARNOOL, ANDRA PRADESH STATE-518221. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PRIYADARSHANI HOTEL Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 COMPOUND, STATION ROAD, HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: BALLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 – SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2019 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.362/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI AND ETC.,. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS FOLLOS: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 03.08.2019, passed in MVC No.362/2016, by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi1, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 3. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that when the claimant along with few others were travelling in a Omni Van bearing registration No.KA-37/M-3215 on Anantpur-Chennai road, a lorry bearing registration No.AP-21/TY-3108 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling, causing the accident in question, wherein the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant instituted claim proceedings arraying the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry as respondents No.1 to 3 before the tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 were placed exparte. The 3rd respondent insurer contested the claim proceedings. 4. The tribunal by its judgment and award dated 03.08.2019, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of ₹14,82,768/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. The tribunal held the 2nd and 3rd respondents i.e., owner and insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded and directed the 3rd - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 respondent insurer to deposit the compensation together with interest. 5. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and award of the tribunal seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded. 6. Learned counsel Sri Rajashekhar Gunjalli, appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards medical expenses that were incurred by the claimant. It is further contended that the compensation under various heads is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Sharmila Patil, appearing for the 3rd respondent insurer submits that although the insurer has not filed any appeal, it is contended that the assessment of disability by the tribunal at 40% is erroneous and that the compensation towards loss of future income is on higher side. Hence, it is contended that the total compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and seeks for dismissal of the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 8. The submissions of the learned counsels have been considered and material on record including the records of the tribunal have been perused. 9. The question that arises for consideration is, “whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is liable to be enhanced?” 10. The claimant was aged 53 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 11 adopted by the tribunal is just and proper. The disability certificate (Ex.P.15), MLC register (Ex.P.16) discloses that the claimant sustained fracture of shaft of right femur and other injuries. The doctor has issued the disability certificate (Ex.P.15) by stating that the claimant has a permanent disability of 20-22% to the whole body and 36-38% to the particular limb. The doctor PW.2 has deposed that the percentage of disability is 76%. However PW.2 has not stated as to the basis/manner with which he has arrived at disability of 76%. The tribunal considering the same, has assessed the disability as 40%, which is erroneous. Having regard to the medical evidence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 on record, it is just and proper that the disability be re-assessed at 20% to the whole body. 11. The claimant was carrying on business and earning an income of ₹40,000/- per month. Trading account and profit and loss account extract for the assessment year 2009-10 have been marked as Ex.P.106. The provisional financial statement for the year 2010-11 has been marked as Ex.P.107. The computation of total income for the assessment year 2011-12 has been marked as Ex.P.108. The trading and profit and loss account for the assessment year 2011-12 have been marked as Ex.P.109. The acknowledgments for having filed the income tax returns have also been produced. However, it is to be noted that the income tax returns of the claimant for the relevant period, as on the date of the accident have not been produced. Further, the claimant has not examined his Chartered Accountant/Accountant to depose regarding the income tax returns. The tribunal considering the material on record has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at ₹8,500/-, which is just and proper. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 12. In view of the aforementioned, the loss of future earning capacity is re-assessed as ₹2,24,400/- (₹8,500 (income) x 12 (months) x 11 (multiplier) x 20% (disability). 13. The claimant has been treated as inpatient for a total period of 60 days as is forthcoming from the discharge summary produced at Exs.P.53, 55 and 59. 14. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, and the period of treatment, it is just and proper to re-assess the compensation towards pain and suffering at ₹50,000/- as against ₹10,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 15. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the resultant disability, it is just and proper to award ₹50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life as against ₹10,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 16. The period of treatment is taken as six months and accordingly the loss of income during treatment is re-assessed as ₹51,000/- (₹8,500/- x 6 months) as against ₹22,500/- awarded by the tribunal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 17. Having regard to the period during which the claimant was treated as an inpatient, it is just and proper to award a compensation of ₹40,000/- towards food, nutrition attendant charges and conveyance as against ₹10,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 18. The tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹9,81,468/- towards medical expenses. It is relevant to note that the medical bill (Ex.P.28) is for a sum of ₹2,42,239/-; the medical bill (Ex.P.53) is for a sum of ₹5,24,581/-; the medical bill (Ex.P.55) is for a sum of ₹9,18,825/- and the medical bill (Ex.P.59) is for a sum of ₹1,27,915/-. Hence, the total medical expenses is ₹18,13,560/-. The tribunal has not assigned any reasons for awarding only a sum of ₹9,81,468/-. Hence a compensation of ₹18,15,000/- is re-assessed towards medical expenses as against ₹9,81,468/- awarded by the tribunal. 19. In view of the same, the compensation is re-assessed as follows: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (₹) Amount awarded by this Court (₹) 1. Loss of future income. 4,48,800 2,24,400 2. Pain and suffering. 10,000 50,000 3. Loss of amenities in life. 10,000 50,000 4. Diet, nourishment, attendant charges and conveyance. 10,000 40,000 5. Medical expenses. 9,81,468 18,15,000 6. Loss of earning during treatment. 22,500 51,000 Total: 14,82,768 22,30,400 20. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹7,47,632/- (₹22,30,400/- minus ₹14,82,768/-). Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 21. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 03.08.2019, passed in MVC No.362/2016, by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi, is modified to the extent of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4638-DB MFA No. 100121 of 2020 holding that the claimant is entitled to a further compensation of ₹7,47,632/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. iii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other respects is remain unlatered. iv) The 3rd respondent insurance company shall deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v) Modified award to be drawn accordingly. vi) Records of the tribunal shall be returned forthwith. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0