- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13973 MFA No. 100683 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100683 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. INDRUS S/O. SULEMAN SAYYAD, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC, NOW NIL, R/O: RAM NAGAR, KANGRALI (KH), TAL/DIST: BELAGAVI-590010. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GEETHA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI ALLAUDDIN ADAM MULLA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NH-196, G.N.209, MIDC GOKUL SHIRGAON, TALUKA: KARVEER, DIST: KOLHAPUR-416234, (OWNER OF TRUMP-40 PICK-UP VEHICLE BEARING REGN. NO.MH-09/CL-597) Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.31 11:00:35 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13973 MFA No. 100683 of 2020 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001, (INSURER OF TRUMP-40 PICK-UP VEHICLE BEARING REGN. NO.MH-09/CL-597 POLICY NO.1628013114P108083325 VALID FROM 04/01/2015 TO 03/01/2016) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.12.2018 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN M.V.C. NO.209/2018 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY HOLDING THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO PAY THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13973 MFA No. 100683 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Smt.Geetha K.M. learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Nagangouda R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi in MVC 209 of 2018 dated 20.12.2018. This is a claimant’s appeal. 3. On the ground that he sustained grievous injury in a road traffic accident, the appellant filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in total. The tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.4,33,560/- as compensation. The version of the appellant is that he is entitled for a higher sum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13973 MFA No. 100683 of 2020 4. The tribunal subjecting the evidence that is brought on record to scrutiny, granted a sum of Rs.4,33,560/- as compensation divided under following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation amount in Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 40,000 2 Medical expenses 1,82,000 3 Conveyance, attendant charges, nourishment 17,000 4 Future loss of earning 1,42,560/- 5 Loss of earning during treatment period 27,000 6 Loss of amenities 25,000 Total 4,33,560 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of shaft of right femur at lower 1/3rd and middle 1/3rd junction and took treatment as inpatient for a period of 17 days in total. It is also established that during the course of treatment the appellant underwent surgery. Though the appellant contended that as mechanic, he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by the date of accident, no substantive proof is produced either in respect of his occupation or earnings by the date of accident. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 in this regard is that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and for the relevant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13973 MFA No. 100683 of 2020 period for settlement of claims, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month. But the tribunal took the notional income on a higher side that is at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month. The tribunal taking notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month is justifiable and therefore cannot be interfered with. The said sum can neither be enhanced. 6. Having considered the disability certificate produced and the evidence of the doctor who stated that the disability in respect of right lower limb is 35%, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 12% which also needs no interference. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 17 days and underwent a surgery, the tribunal granted compensation of Rs.27,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment period holding that he might have required at least a period of 3 months for recovery. The tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities apart from granting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13973 MFA No. 100683 of 2020 Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. The actual medical expenses incurred that is Rs.1,82,000/- is also granted. Therefore this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the tribunal. Hence this Court concludes that the appeal lacks merits. 8. Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE EM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9