- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101176 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA DEVAGERI, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BRICK MAKER, NOW NIL, R/O. TIMMAPUR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SHANMUKHA S/O. RUDRAPPA BALIGER, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARAG, TQ & DIST.DHARWAD. 2. THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, PLOT NO.EL 94, T.T.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, MHAPE, THROUGH ITS MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, 2A, 2ND FLOOR, 84-RAMSON COMPLEX, P. B. ROAD, HOSSUR, HUBBALLI-580021, KARNATAKA. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, BAILHONGAL, IN MVC NO.07/2013 DATED 20.02.2015 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This is a claimant’s appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Member, AMACT, Bailhongal, in M.V.C. No. 7/2013 for enhancement of the compensation. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 19.09.2012 the claimant and one Basavaraj Koppad were traveling on a motorcycle bearing No. KA-25-X-1450 from Simpegeri cross to Madanbhavi, to go to Timmapur village. The claimant was the pillion rider and Basavaraj was rider of the said motorcycle; when they came near Tadkod bus stand, on Bailhongal-Dharwad road, they met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailor bearing Reg. No. KA-25/TA-0900 & KA-25/1804 as a result of which claimant sustained fracture and dislocation of the right knee and compound type II fracture shaft of Tibia and other injuries all over the body - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 as mentioned in the wound certificate. He had taken treatment as inpatient from 19.09.2012 to 25.10.2012 in ‘Our Lady Lourdes Charitable Hospital, Dharwad’. He underwent surgery and incurred huge medical expenses. He has been suffering from permanent disability. He was aged about 43 years at the time of accident, an agriculturist, also doing brick making work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. With these reasons prayed to award compensation. 3. Respondent No.2 is the insurer and respondent no.1 is the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 denied the contention of the claimant and further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. From the rival contentions of the parties the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 Exs.P.1 to P.156. Respondent No.2 got marked one document as Ex.R.1. The tribunal after hearing both the sides, held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailor by its driver and petitioner sustained injury in the said accident. The Tribunal assessed income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month, permanent disability as 23% to the whole body, applied multiplier of ’14’ and awarded compensation as under: 1. Pain and suffering 70,000.00 2. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 15,000.00 3. Medical expenses incurred 1,10,000.00 4. Incidental expenses 15,000.00 5. Loss of income during laid up and rest period 21,000.00 6. Loss of future income 2,70,480.00 7. Future medical expenses 30,000.00 8. Total 5,31,480.00 5. Heard arguments. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that disability assessed by the trial court is on the lower side. According to the treated doctor, the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the lower limb to an extent of 70% - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 and to the extent of 30% to the whole body. He is a treated Doctor and therefore whatever the disability stated by him shall be accepted. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on the lower side and therefore sought for enhancement of compensation. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly assessed compensation which does not call for interference by this Court. Therefore he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. The following point emerges for determination. “Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation?” 9. The above point is partly answered in the affirmative for the following reasons. 10. The Tribunal has mentioned the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant at paragraph No. 15, which is not in dispute. The claimant had sustained fracture and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 dislocation of right knee with the compound fracture of shaft of tibia. He underwent surgery. He has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P.8 and disability certificate at Ex.P.9. The Doctor who has treated the claimant was examined as PW2. In his evidence PW2 corroborated Ex.P.9. The respondent No.2 denied that claimant has been suffering from disability as stated in Ex.P.9 as well as in the evidence of PW2. The photo of the claimant is produced at Ex.P.146. The fractured portion looks very ugly and there is shortening of 5 cms in the right limb compared to the left limb. 11. The main contention of the appellant is that permanent disability assessed by the treated Doctor to the whole body is 30%. However the Tribunal has taken it as 23% on the basis of the physical disability to the lower limb is mentioned as 70% by the Doctor and it has assessed 1/3rd of the same. His further contention is that when the treated Doctor has been examined, whatever he has stated before the Court is to be accepted. The said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 submission cannot be accepted. The disability stated by a Medical Officer or a Doctor are pertaining to functional disability of victim. Tribunals have to assess the disability on the basis of its effect on earning capacity of the victim, looking to the nature of his work. Considering these facts as well as notification issued by the Central Government, 1/3rd of the disability affecting particular lower limb will be considered as disability to the whole body. It is to be accepted in principle more or less by the High Courts as well as the Apex Court. The said principle is followed by the trial Court. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the said finding. 12. Admittedly there is no legal evidence on record to show that claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.7,000/- which is not exorbitant and it is reasonable. Therefore there is no need to reconsider the same. 13. Looking to the nature of injuries status of the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded by the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 Tribunal under the heads pain and suffering, loss of amenities, incidental expenses, loss of income during laid up period and future medical expenses has to be recalculated. The Tribunal has not considered the attendant charges. The claimant was stated to be admitted in the hospital for 36 days. He is a resident of Thimmapur village and he has taken treatment in the hospital situated at Dharwad, which is stated to be away by 60 kms. from the said village. He had taken follow up treatment in the said hospital and must have spent some amount towards conveyance charges. Looking to the nature of injuries it is difficult to believe that he could travel by public conveyance to take follow up treatment. 15. Claimant has sustained multiple fracture to right limb. Therefore it is difficult to believe that he could attend to his duties within a period of three months. Looking to Ex.P.14, i.e., the photograph, his right leg wherein he sustained fractures, looks very ugly. It will lead to inferiority complex and he may have to face it till - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 his death. His leg has been shortened by 5 cms and fracture is mal united. 14. Considering this factors he may have to loose other amenities available to a healthy person. Considering these facts the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the above said heads is to be recalculated. Accordingly the following amount of compensation is awarded. 1. Pain and suffering 80,000.00 2. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 50,000.00 3. Medical expenses incurred 1,10,000.00 4. Incidental expenses, special diet and conveyance charges 50,000.00 5. Loss of income during laid up period 42,000.00 6. Loss of future income 2,70,480.00 7. Future medical expenses 40,000.00 8. Total 6,42,480.00 Award of the Tribunal 5,31,480.00 Enhancement 1,11,000.00 The claimant is entitled for enhancement of Rs.1,11,000/-. Accordingly, the above said question is answered partly in the affirmative. 15. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4893 MFA No. 101176 of 2015 ORDER [1] The appeal is partly allowed. [2] Judgment and decree dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge & Member, AMACT, Bailhongal, in M.V.C. No. 7/2013 is modified. [3] The amount of compensation is enhanced by Rs.1,11,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till its realization. [4] Entire enhanced compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimant as per the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to the trial court along with trial court records. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36