- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201593/2022(MV-I) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201608/2022(MV-I) IN MFA NO.201593/2022: BETWEEN: FIROJA @ FIROJA KANA S/O HAJIMALANG PENDARI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING WORK, R/O NIDAGUNDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA, NOW RESIDING AT NISAR MADDI, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLANGOUDA S/O GOLAPPANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KUDRI SALAWADAGI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 2. SHARANAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KAKKERI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SINDAGERI (OLD), HANCHALI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. 3. THE MANAGER LEGAL, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., S.S. FRONT ROAD, NEAR HANUMASHETTY BUILDING, VIJAYAPURA-586 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADV., FOR R3; R1 & R2 - V/O DTD. 28.09.2022 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.12.2021 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII, VIJAYAPUR, IN MVC NO.719/2019, AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED FOR. IN MFA NO.201608/2022: BETWEEN: PRABHU S/O MUDDAPPA TONDIKATTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING WORK, R/O NEAR MUDDESHWAR TEMPLE, KAMADAL R.C., NIDAGUNDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 NOW RESIDING AT JALANAGAR, VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLANGOUDA S/O GOLAPPANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KUDRI SALAWADAGI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. 2. SHARANAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KAKKERI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SINDAGERI (OLD), HANCHALI, TQ. BASAVANA BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 203. 3. THE MANAGER LEGAL, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., S.S. FRONT ROAD, NEAR HANUMASHETTY BUILDING, VIJAYAPURA-586 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADV., FOR R3; R1 & R2 - V/O DTD. 28.09.2022 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.12.2021 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII, VIJAYAPUR, IN MVC NO.718/2019 AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED FOR. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. Though these appeals are slated for admission, with the consent of the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. 2. These two appeals are by the petitioners- claimants against the common judgment and award dated 28.12.2021 passed in MVC Nos.718/2019 and 719/2019 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT VII, Vijayapura, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the case for the purpose of disposal of these appeals is as below: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 a) On 08.05.2019 the appellants-petitioners had been to Gundanapalle R.C. Village, situated near Bagalkot City to attend festival and while returning on motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-34/U-2287 at about 7.30 p.m., on Bagalkot-Almatti State Highway, a Cruiser vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-48/M-1048 came from opposite direction in high speed and collided against the motorcycle of the petitioners resulting in the petitioners sustaining grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioners were shifted to Dr. Katti Hospital, Bagalkot, for treatment. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner in MVC No.718/2019 i.e., Prabhu has claimed that he was aged 32 years, earning Rs.30,000/- per month out of centering work and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered the permanent disability. He contended that his right leg was amputated in the accident and therefore, he is unable to do his avocation of the centering work and there is total permanent disability. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 b) The petitioner in MVC No.719/2019 i.e., Firoza contended that he was a Mestri with the said Prabhu and he suffered fracture of tibia, shaft of tibia and tibial condyle and he has suffered a permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained and therefore, there being reduction in his income, adequate compensation be awarded to him. c) Pursuant to the service of notices, respondent No.1 and 3 appeared through their counsels and filed their written statements. Respondent No.2 was placed ex- parte. d) Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle contented that there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the Cruiser, but the negligence was on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. It was contended that the driver of the Cruiser was having a valid driving license and therefore, any liability, if any, may be fastened upon respondent No.3. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 e) Respondent No.3-Insurance Company contended that the petitioner in MVC No.719/2018 i.e., Firoza was the rider of the motorcycle and he was carrying more than one passengers as pillion riders in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore, the negligence was on the part of the said Firoza. It was contended that the jeep driver was not having valid driving license and therefore, there being violation of the policy conditions, the insurer be absolved from payment of any compensation. f) On the basis of the above contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal. A common enquiry was held in both the petitions as well as in MVC No.720/2019 also. The petitioners herein were examined as PWs.1 and 3 and the Doctor was examined as PW4. Exs.P1 to P 29 were marked in evidence. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as below: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 In MVC No.718/2019 1 Injury, pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2 Attendant’s charges Rs.10,000/- 3 Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- 4 Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/- 5 Medical expenses Rs.2,05,905/- 6 Loss of future income Rs.3,78,000/- 7 Loss of future amenities and agony Rs.30,000/- 8 Loss of income during laid- up period Rs.9,000/- Total Rs.6,82,905/- In MVC No.719/2019 1 Injury, pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2 Attendant’s charges Rs.10,000/- 3 Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- 4 Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/- 5 Medical expenses Rs.1,74,678/- 6 Loss of future income Rs.1,83,600/- 7 Loss of future amenities and agony Rs.30,000/- 8 Loss of income during laid- up period Rs.9,000/- Total Rs.4,57,279/- 4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel appearing for - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 respondent No.3 – Insurance Company in both the appeals and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in MVC No.718/2019 submits that the petitioner – Prabhu, who was the pillion rider on the motorcycle driven by Firoza, had sustained injuries and his right leg was amputated above knee, which has rendered him incapable of earning his livelihood. The injury being permanent in nature, the disability is also total and though PW4 – Doctor had stated that that physical disability is to the extent of 85%, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding functional disability at 25%. It is contended that the amputation has resulted in the petitioner unable to do the job. The Tribunal should have considered the disability at 100%. It is contended that the compensation awarded under the remaining heads is also on the lower side and therefore, there was need for re-assessment of the compensation. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 7. Insofar as the petitioner in MVC No.719/2019 is concerned, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the income that was earned by the petitioner. It is contended that the compensation under the head future loss of income should have been considered by holding the functional disability of the petitioner at about 15% and the Tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability. Therefore, he contends that in both the appeals the compensation be re-assessed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company would submit that the compensation arrived by the Tribunal is correct and there is no need for enhancement of the compensation in both the appeals. 9. A perusal of the records would show that the Tribunal having rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Cruiser, proceeded to assess the compensation based on the nature of the injuries - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 sustained and the disability suffered by the petitioners. It is trite law that the functional disability and physical disability are different. A Medical Officer would be deposing about the physical disability, which he has assessed. It is the duty of the Tribunal to assess the functional disability by considering physical disability suffered by the person and disability with reference to the avocation of such person. In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has held that though there is loss of one eye, the physical disability of which may be less than 50%, the functional disability will be more and in case of a Diamond Cutter it would be 100%. Therefore, the translation of the physical disability into functional disability is a matter, which should be assessed by the Tribunal. 10. In the light of the above principles, which are enunciated in the judgment of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another1, it appears that the Tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability. 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 11. IN MFA No.201608/2022 (MVC No.718/2019): The appellant- Prabhu was aged about 45 years as per the wound certificate and other medical records and he was working as a labourer in centering work. It is worth to note that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent material to establish that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as claimed. The Tribunal took the notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month. It is relevant to note that the accident having occurred in the year 2019, the notional income should be on par with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect of the settlement of the claims arising out of the motor vehicle accidents before the Lok Adalath prescribes the notional income at Rs.13,250/- p.m. for the year 2019. In umpteen number of cases, this Court has held that the said guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 notional income of the appellant is held to be Rs.13,250/- p.m. 12. So far as the disability is considered, PW.4 has stated that due to the amputation of the right leg above knee, there is a physical disability of 85%. Considering the age of the appellant to be 45 years, the functional disability is considered at 75%. 13. In view of the fact that the disability is going to be permanent and the appellant at the age of 45 years has to suffer the amputation of the right leg above knee for the rest of his life, it would be proper to add future prospects to the multiplicand. Hence, by adding 25% to the monthly income of Rs.13,250/-, the effective multiplicand would come to Rs.13,250 + Rs.3,313 = 16,563/-. 14. Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of future income is calculated as: Rs.16,563 x 12 x 14 x 75% = Rs.20,86,938/- by adopting the multiplier of 14. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering to the tune of Rs.30,000/- needs to be enhanced and the same is assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each under the heads of attendance charges, conveyance charges and food and nourishment and the same is enhanced together to Rs.50,000/-, 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. Evidently, the petitioner has suffered amputation of the right leg and therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 18. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of expenses of the prosthesis. Therefore, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded under the said head, which would not carry any interest. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 Considering the amputation of leg, it can safely be said that the appellant was unable to resume his work at least for a period of six months. Hence, a sum of Rs.79,500/- (Rs.13,250 x 6) is also awarded to him under this head. 20. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of medical expenses does not call for any interference by this Court. 21. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Medical expenses Rs.2,05,905/- Expenses of the prosthesis Rs.75,000/- Attendant charges, Conveyance charges and Food and nourishment Rs.50,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs.79,500/- Loss of future earnings Rs.20,86,938/- Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Total Less: awarded by Tribunal Enhancement Rs.26,97,343/- Rs.6,82,905/- Rs.20,14,438/- Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.20,14,438/- with interest. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 22. IN MFA NO.201593/2022 (MVC No.719/2019): PW.4 has stated that there is a disability of 30 to 35%. Considering the fact that the appellant herein was also the companion of the petitioner in MVC No.718/2019 engaged in centering work as a Mestri, it would be proper to hold that there is a functional disability of 12%. Considering the national income at Rs.13,250/- p.m. in the absence of any proof of income, the loss of future income is calculated as: Rs.13,250 x 12 x 12% x 17 = Rs.3,24,360/- by adopting the multiplier of 17 for the age of 28 years. 23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 24. Similarly the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering to the tune of Rs.30,000/- is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 25. Holding that the appellant was unable to resume his work at least for a period of three months, he is entitled - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 for a sum of Rs.39,750/- (Rs.13,250 x 3) under the head of loss of income during laid up period. 26. Considering the fact that the appellant was an inpatient for a period of 28 days, the compensation awarded under the head of attended charges, conveyance charges and food and nourishment which is assessed at Rs.30,000/- together is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of medical expenses does not call for any interference by this Court. 28. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,74,678/- Attendant charges, conveyance charges and food and nourishment Rs.40,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs.39,750/- Loss of future earnings Rs.3,24,360/- Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/- Total Less: awarded by Tribunal Enhancement Rs.6,58,788/- Rs.4,57,279/- Rs.2,01,509/- - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,01,509/- with interest. 29. In the result, the appeals deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Both the appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and awards passed by the Tribunal are modified. (iii) The appellant in MFA No.*201593/2022 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,01,509/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, excluding the interest on the compensation awarded under the head of expenses of the prosthesis. (iv) The appellant in MFA No.*201608/2022 is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,14,438/- in * Corrected vide order dated 28th March 2025. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1286 MFA No. 201593 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201608 of 2022 addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (v) Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company in both the appeals is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (vi) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SBS,LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT: AK