- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 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.201797 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DILIP @ DILIP KUMAR S/O VITHAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: SALESMAN WORKING IN M/S GANGA MEDICAL STORE, HUMNABAD, NOW NIL, R/O H.NO.C/31/84, BLOCK NO.20, 21, 22, HUMNABAD, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST RESEARCH, OPPOSITE GOVT. I.T.I., RADIO PARK, BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY-583 101. 2. DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA GOVT. INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, VEHICLE DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 JUDGE, HUMNABAD, IN M.V.C. NO.523/2017, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL 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) By consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal, though it is slated for Admission. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.09.2019 passed in MVC No.523/2017 by the Member, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Humnabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 4. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioner in MVC No.523/2017 by the Tribunal. 5. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 02.09.2015, while the petitioner with his brother-in-law was travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-39/J-8998 near Hallikhed-K cross, a Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing No.KA-34/G-0551 belonging to the Forest Department came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, resulting in the petitioner sustaining fracture of left tibia and fibula and he was admitted to Shree Hospital, Bidar. He was inpatient from 02.09.2015 to 05.09.2015 and he had to spend huge amount and he being aged 37 years working as a salesman in Ganga medical stores, Humnabad, has suffered the disability and as such, he may be awarded adequate compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 6. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not appear before the Tribunal and therefore, they were placed ex-parte. 7. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor, who assessed his disability was examined PW.2. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked in evidence. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 8. After hearing the arguments by both sides, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,21,600/- to the petitioner and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount awarded under different heads as below: Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 46,400/- Attendant, conveyance charges and nutrition of food etc. Rs. 800/- Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Loss of future income Rs.1,34,400/- Total Rs.2,21,600/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He states that the Tribunal failed to assess the income of the petitioner in consonance with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act as well as the commensurate notional income. He contends that the Tribunal did not award any compensation under the heads of loss of amenities in life and loss of income during laid up period and therefore, reassessment of the compensation amount to be made. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and proper. 12. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner had suffered fracture of the tibia and fibula and PW.2 had stated that there is a disability of 30 to 35%. He - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 also found that the implants were in situ and therefore, future medical expenses was also awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner stated that he was salesman in a medical store and due to the accidental injuries suffered by him, he is unable to do the job. It is pertinent to note that the disability of the petitioner stated by PW.2 at 30 to 35% has to be translated into the functional disability. This exercise has not been done by the Tribunal and it has a simply taken the functional disability at 1/3rd of the physical disability. Considering the nature of the avocation of the petitioner, the functional disability of the petitioner is assessed at 12%. 13. So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, obviously the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof regarding the income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed. 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2015. 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 notional income of the appellant is held to be Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of future income is calculated as: Rs.8,000 x 12 x 16 x 12% = Rs.1,84,320/- by adopting the multiplier of 16. 14. Considering the nature of injuries which involves fracture of tibia as well as fibula, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 15. The petitioner was an inpatient for a period of four days and therefore, a sum of Rs.4,000/- is awarded to him under the head of attendant, conveyance charges and nutrition of food etc. 16. Considering the nature of injuries, it can safely be said that the petitioner was unable to resume his work - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 at least for a period of three months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000 x 3) is awarded under the head of loss of income during laid up period. 17. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head. 18. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the remaining heads is just and proper and does not require any enhancement. 19. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Medical expenses Rs.46,400/- Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- Attendant, conveyance charges & nutrition of food etc. Rs.4,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs.24,000/- Loss of future earnings Rs.1,84,320/- Loss of amenities in life Rs.40,000/- Total Less: awarded by Tribunal Enhancement Rs.3,48,720/- Rs.2,21,600/- Rs.1,27,120/- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,27,120/- with interest. 20. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.1,27,120/- 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 for the delayed period of 495 days in filing the appeal. (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1285 MFA No. 201797 of 2023 (iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44