- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102202 OF 2024 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103058 OF 2024(MV-I) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REPRESENTED BY, THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PRABHU BUILDING, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. (INSURER OF CAR NO. KA-24/M-2739, POLICY NO. 39010231176100049722, VALID FROM 14-10-2017 TO 13-10-2018, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANAND ANNAPPA METGUDDA, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL, R/O. MANTUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT 587121 2. VEERABHADRAPPA B DESAI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MAHANT SHRI NEW DESAI WADA, MURGOD, TQ. SAUNDATTI 561119, DIST. BELAGAVI, (AS PER R. C. AND INSURANCE POLICY). AND ALSO AT NO. 340, ROY ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI. (AS PER D.L.) OWNER OF CAR NO. KA-24/M-2739. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.403/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.44,53,537/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103058 OF 2024 BETWEEN: ANAND S/O ANNAPPA METGUDDA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL R/O: MANTUR-587121 TALUK: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VEERABHADRAPPA B DESAI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MAHANT SHRI, NEW DESAI WADA, MURGOD-561119 TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI AND ALSO AT NO.340, ROY ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELGAVI-590006. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PRABHU BUILDING, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY S C BHUTI, ADV FOR R-2 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPOSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.02.2024 IN MVC NO. 403/2020 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BELGAVI. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals are directed against a judgment and award dated 29.02.2024 passed in MVC No.403/2020 by the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi (in short `the Tribunal’). Appellant in MFA No.102202/2024 was Respondent No.2/Inurance Company and Appellant in MFA No.103058/24 was petitioner/claimant in MVC No.403/2020 on the file of aforesaid Tribunal. 2. Parties to these appeals are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. That a claim petition was filed by the claimant- petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident that took place on 5.8.2018 at 10.10 p.m. when he was proceeding on motor cycle bearing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 Regn.No.KA-48/Y-1054 along with pillion rider near the land of one Mallappa Basappa Chilakhandi, Soppadla village on Yeragatti-Lokapur Road. It is alleged that, at that time, when he was moving on his motor cycle in a moderate speed on his correct side, at that time, driver of a car bearing Regn.No.KA-24/M-2739 came from the opposite direction in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to his motor cycle. Because of this impact, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. It is stated that immediately, he was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Yeragatti where he took first-aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi. In the said Hospital, he took treatment as an inpatient till 8.8.2018. Thereafter, he went to Ganga Hospital, Gokak and admitted himself as inpatient from 9.8.2018 to 8.9.2018. During this treatment, he underwent surgery and his right lower limb was amputated, so also right upper limb draped. It is alleged that, he had a loose flexible nail which was removed and even repeat square ulna nail was put and the wound was closed. He had spent more than Rs.8,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He requires - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses and to have artificial limb, he has to spend Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. It is alleged that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was aged 28 years. He was an agriculturist and used to grow commercial crops like sugar cane and tobacco and used to earn income of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. By using this income, he used to maintain his family. Now he has been physically disabled due to the accidental injuries and suffering physically, mentally and financially. As the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 5. In response to the notice, both the respondents appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent no.1 has not filed any objections, whereas, respondent no.2 opposed the petition by filing objection statement denying the entire assertions made in the petition. According to respondent no.2, the said accident has taken place not because of any - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 rash and negligent driving of offending car but, because of the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the claimant. The driver of the said offending vehicle was not holding effective driving licence. A false complaint was filed by the pillion rider. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The claim made by the claimant is on higher side. So far as issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of accident, it is admitted. But, it is contended that, liability of respondent no.2 is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four relevant issues. To prove the claim of claimant, he was examined as PW.1 and also examined three eye witnesses in the shape of PWs. 2, 3 and 5 and so also examined his wife as PW.4 and doctor as PW.6 got marked Ex.P1 to P48. Closed claimant’s evidence. The official of respondent no.2 was examined as RW.1 so also owner of the vehicle was examined as RW.2 and on behalf of respondents, Ex.R1 to 10 were marked. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 7. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on assessment of the evidence, held that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and claimant is entitled for the compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount Rs. 1. Pain and Suffering 1,00,000-00 2. Loss of income during laid up period 47,000-00 3. Loss of future income (Rs.11,750 x 12 x 17 x 100%) 23,97,000-00 4. Loss of future prospects 40% 9,58,800-00 5. Nourishment and attendant charges 50,000-00 6. Loss of happiness and future amenities 30,000-00 7. Conveyance and incidental charges 20,000-00 8. Medical Expenses 8,50,737-00 Total 44,53,537-00 8. This judgment and award is challenged by the insurer on quantum as well as liability and the claimant has filed appeal seeking enhancement in compensation by preferring independent appeal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 9. The learned counsel for the insurer Sri S.C.Bhuti in addition to urging the facts of the case and findings of the learned Tribunal submits that, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and has exorbitantly granted the compensation which is against the facts and evidence placed on record. He would submit that the said accident has taken place because of sole negligence on the part of the claimant being the rider of the motor bike and the spot panchanama sketch demonstrates that because of the rash and negligent diving of the motor bike, the said accident has taken place and not by the driver of the offending car. He would further submit that, as per the wound certificate issued by the Primary Health Centre, Yeragatti, the claimant had consumed alcohol and he was intoxicated. Even the charge sheet Ex.R4 so filed against respondent no.1 shows that there was negligence on the part of motor cycle rider. The IO was examined as RW.3 who has filed the charge sheet and the said charge sheet so filed by respondent no.1 is not challenged. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 10. He would further submit that, erroneously the Tribunal has saddled entire negligence and liability on the insurer which is perverse and illegal. On investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the rider of motor bike. The doctor so examined has not assessed the disability in a proper manner and wrongly the claimant now asserts that he had sustained 100% disability which is apparently wrong. The learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the notional income of the claimant and also has wrongly awarded future prospects. Thus, according to his submission, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation and prays to set aside the impugned judgment and award. 11. In support of his submission, he relied upon the evidence adduced on behalf of respondents so also, highlighted the alleged fault with the findings of the Tribunal. 12. As against this submission, learned Counsel Smt. Sunanda P.Patil appearing for the claimant in addition to narrating the facts of the case would submit - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 that, claimant in the said accident as per the wound certificate had suffered seven injuries and there was amputation of his right leg above the knee. The claimant had suffered lot both as in-patient and as out-patient. Almost for one and half month, he took treatment as in-patient. The awarded compensation under various heads is on lower side. According to her, because of nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, so also the amputation of his right leg above the knee, the claimant has become permanently disabled. Even he requires artificial limb and require money to meet the future medical expenses. The claimant was an agriculturist by occupation and used to grow commercial crops and used to earn more than 6 lakhs per annum. He has lost his income because of his disability. Now he cannot earn from his agricultural operations as he was earning prior to the accident. It is prayed to enhance the compensation. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of both the side and perused the records. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 14. In view of these rival submissions, the points that would arise for our consideration are: i) "Whether the claimant proves that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car on 5.8.2018 at 10.10 p.m. and he has not contributed any negligence on his part in causing the said accident? ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement in compensation so awarded by the Tribunal and it is respondent nos. 1 and 2 have to pay the same and respondent no.2 to indemnify as claimed?" Our answers to the above points are as below: 15. PW.1 the claimant is specific in his evidence about the said accident and states that, because of rash and negligent driving of offending car, the said accident has taken place. In support of this plea, the claimant relied upon various documents prepared by the IO during the course of investigation which are marked at Ex.P1 to P12. This PW.1 has been cross-examined by respondent no.2 only. Respondent no.1 has not chosen to cross-examine this PW.1 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 admits about the nature of the road so situated surrounding the accident spot. He denies a suggestion that, the said accident has taken place because of his negligence. 16. PW.2 Bhimappa Ningappa Kabbur is stated to be an eye witness to the said accident. According to him, at 10.00 p.m. on 5.8.2018, he was near his landed property in front of his house talking with one Siddanagouda Patil. At that time, he noticed an accident which took place near his land and he also noticed that, one Ford Fiago car bearing Regn.No.KA -24/M-2739 by over taking a truck came in high speed and dashed to motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA- 48-Y-1054 which was moving on the left side of the road slowly. According to him, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car stated above. He has been cross-examined at length by respondent no.2. He states that, only after accident, on hearing the sound, he went to the place of accident. The car driver was coming from Bagalkot side and truck was moving ahead of car, the motor cycle was moving on the left side of the road towards Mudhol. There is no denial of this fact by - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 respondent no.2. Likewise, PW.3 Rajusingh corroborates the evidence of PW.2 in material particulars and is specific about the accident which has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car by its driver. PW.4 Shruti Anand Metagudda is wife of claimant who lodged complaint regarding the said accident but, she is not an eye witness to the said accident. In support of this plea, claimant relied upon Ex.P1, a private complaint filed by his wife. Certified copy of the order sheet at Ex.P2 and MV Report at Ex.P3 which show the damages caused to the motorcycle and offending car. It is not in dispute that, the said accident has taken place not because of any mechanical defects. 17. The learned counsel for the insurer much relied upon the contents of Ex.P.4 wherein it is stated that, `alcohol intoxication’. Even claimant relies on Ex.P.7, the complaint lodged to the Police Complaint Authority, Belagavi wherein it is stated that, because of rash and negligent driving of offending car, the said accident has taken place. Because of this, a complaint was filed before the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 Superintendent of Police, Belagavi. The sworn statement of wife of complainant before the JMFC, Saundatti is produced at Ex.P9 so also similar statement of complainant at Ex.P10 and witness statement at Ex.P11 and P12. According to claimant’s counsel, these documents do suggest about rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and hence, it is submitted that, the accident is proved. Whereas, the official of respondent no.2 by Nalinkumar Jadhav deposed in his evidence in line with the contents of objection statement. It is stated that, the Murgod police have registered the crime against rider of motor bike in Crime No.217/2018 and filed charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle which is pending in CC No.1561/2018. RW.1 has been cross- examined by the claimant wherein, he admits about pendency of a private complaint and now registered as CC NO.1581/2019 before JMFC, Saundatti. He denied all the suggestions so directed to him. Evidently he is not an eye witness to the said accident and based upon the documents, he has deposed before the Court. Therefore, much value cannot be attached to the evidence of RW.1. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 18. RW.2 Veerabhadrappa B. Desai is owner of offending car bearing Regn.KA-24/M-2739 and he states that, on 5.8.2018, when his car was coming from Nalathwad, it met with an accident in between 10.00 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. and he was driving the car. At that time, his mother-wife and small children were the inmates of the car. According to him, when his car came near Soppadla village, he was driving the car on the left side of the road, at that time, a Hero Honda new motor cycle without Registration Number came from the opposite direction along with a pillion rider by overtaking the truck came in high speed and dashed to the right front tyre of his car. He stopped the car and noticed that the rider of the said motor bike was in intoxication mood and pillion rider also fell down on the road. The road users shifted the injured to the Hospital and told the name of the rider as Anand Annappa Metgud and he was shifted to Yeragatti Govt.Hospital in an ambulance. The police also came there. 19. This RW.2 was cross-examined by the claimant intensively. He admits about filing of a private - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 complaint against him before the JMFC which is now registered as criminal case. He denied the suggestion that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car. He has deposed some ignorance also. 20. RW.3 Maruti Marihal, is ASI of Murgod Police Station at the relevant time and on receipt of complaint, it is he who registered the crime against the rider of the motor bike in Crime No.217/2018. Based upon the complaint filed by respondent no.1 went to the scene of offence took the photographs. He opines that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of motor bike by the claimant. 21. The cross-examination so directed to him is worth reading. It is elicited that, the place where the police station is constructed was given by RW.2 Veerabhadrappa Desai but, RW.2 states that he has no such information. He further states that, the scene of offence where the accident has taken place is shown by respondent no.1 and as per his say, he has prepared the scene of offence panchanama in - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 the presence of two panchas who are the residents of Murgod village. 22. This evidence of RW.3 if scrutinized and appreciated, evidently respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending car and has given the land for construction of the police station as per the suggestion directed to RW.3. This RW.3 denied the suggestion that, the said Veerabhadrappa used to come to the police station as an elderly person to resolve the disputes. This evidence shows that, as per the say of respondent no.1 only who is arrayed as an accused in the Private Complaint filed by the wife of complaint showed the place of accident and based upon that, this RW.3 has prepared the panchanama and sketch. 23. It is argued by the counsel for the claimant that, just to help respondent no1, the possibility of preparing panchanama at his instance so as to shirk the responsibility of negligent driving by respondent no.1, this RW.3 must have come before the Tribunal to favour respondent no.1. This submission of the counsel for the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 claimant has got some substance, in view of the evidence spoken to by RW.3. 24. The counsel for the insurer relies upon the sketch produced along with the panchanama wherein it shows that, at the scene of accident, the road is having width of 30 ft. and the said accident has taken place at a distance of 10 ft. from southern edge of road. On either side of the said tar road, there exists five ft. kachcha road. It is the defence of respondent no.2 that, there was rash and negligent driving of motor bike by claimant/petitioner by over taking the truck which came on the right side of the road and dashed car owned and driven by respondent no.1. But, in view of evidence of RW.3, the very preparation of panchanama and sketch is at the instance of respondent no.1 only. So far as present case is concerned, it is a case under the MV Act claiming compensation. It is benevolent legislation and summary proceeding. 25. Based upon the material placed on record, we have to ascertain the probability of the accident by applying the principles of preponderance of evidence. In view - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 of evidence of RW.3 and his admissions in the cross- examination being IO, the possibility of preparing the said panchanama as well as sketch as per the say of Respondent no.1 by RW.3 cannot be ruled out. There is no other evidence placed on record by respondent no.2 to substantiate its defence. Respondent no.1 has not resisted the petition by filing objection statement and he simply entered the witness box without his pleading denying the said accident as alleged by the claimant. The evidence of RW.2 without any pleadings have no evidentiary value and it has to be discarded. If all these factual features are put together, it can be stated that, the claimant is able to establish that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car and not in the manner contended by respondent no.2. 26. To prove the injuries sustained by the claimant, he relies upon the wound certificate Ex.P4 wherein doctor has opined that injury nos.1 to 4 and 6 are grievous in nature and injury no.5 is simple in nature. He has - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 sustained the following injuries in the said road traffic accident. 1. “CLW over the right lower leg measuring 3x2x2 swelling underlying fracture (comminuted fracture of shaft of libia and fibula on right side underlying to fracture of patelia with artury displacement. 2. CLW over the Righrt thigh measuring 5x4x2 cm. swelling underlying displaced fracture of lower 1/3 right femur. 3. CLW over the Right hand measuring 4x1x2 cm. underlying fracture of 3rd metacarpal bone. Chip of stppwil process of radnce and displaced fracture shaft of 4th metacarpal bone 4. Multiple CLW over the Right elbow region and prearm (1) 2x2x1cms (2) 5x2x1cms (3) 3x1x1cms (4) 2x2x1cms displaced fracture of shaft of radar 5. CLW over the tight not 3x2x2cm in length 6. there is a evidence of displaced fracture of atrecal surface of the body of right scapula.” 27. Ex.P5 is the discharge summary issued by KLE Hospital in which, the claimant has taken treatment as inpatient from 6.8.2018 to 8.8.2018. The doctor has noticed - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 about the nature of injures sustained by the claimant. Ex.P6 is the document issued by Ganga Hospital, Gokak addressed to the PSI Gokak about the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident. This document is dated 9.8.2018. Nature of injuries sustained by the claimant is narrated by the doctor in this letter. Likewise, claimant has produced other medical records and investigation reports issued by the KLE Hospital and Ganga Hospital. These documents as rightly observed by the Tribunal show the nature of the treatment administered on the claimant and also there is amputation of his right leg above the knee. At Ganga Hospital he was inpatient from 9.8.2018 to 28.9.2018. It is observed that, when he was discharged, the claimant had “discharging wound over the right amputated stump". He was advised to have dressing every day. Ex.P17 is the photograph showing the nature of the amputation of right leg of the claimant who is sitting on a wheel chair. It shows that right leg above the knee is amputated so also Ex.P18 another photograph. Ex.P19 is the photograph with artificial right leg. Ex.P22 is another photograph showing the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 wound mark on his right hand so also Ex.P23. These documents show the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. Ex.P25 is a disability certificate issued by the doctor on 29.3.2022 showing the following injuries sustained by the claimant: “He was suffering from 1:Compound comminuted fracture tibia and fibula right leg with satured wound and distal pulsation abent Popliteal artery injury with external fixator. Movements of the toes are absent and leg is cold on touch, vascular repair for popliteal artery was attempted at KLE hospital Belagavi 2: Compoud comminuted fracture patella right side with satured wound 3: Compound fracture shaft femur lower third right side with sutured wound and external fixatior 4: Closed fracture both bones right forearm 5: Compound fracture 4th metacarpal right hand with sutured wound - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 6: Closed fracture scaphoid right side” 28. It is stated that claimant had visited the hospital even for follow-up treatment and the doctor has assessed permanent disability at 100% to the whole body. He also has produced medical bills worth Rs.8,50,737/- as per the medical bills marked at Ex.P26 with prescription. He also has produced X-ray films. While marking these documents, the respondents have not raised any objections. 29. PW.6 is the doctor has spoken in his evidence about the treatment administered on the claimant as well as disability based upon the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said road traffic accident. He is consistent in his evidence about the injuries and disability. Though this PW.6 is cross-examined but, nothing worth is elicited so as to disbelieve his version given in the examination-in-chief. 30. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant as well as disability suffered by the claimant as per the medical reports and also the nature of the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 treatment taken by the claimant and the present medical condition of the claimant, it can be stated that, claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 80% to the whole body because of the injuries sustained by him so also amputation of his right leg because of accidental injuries and also other injuries so narrated in the wound certificate and disability certificate. 31. Though the claimant asserts that, he was earning Rs.6,00,000/- per year, except the self-serving evidence of claimant, there is no evidence to show that, he is an agriculturist and was earning income to the said extent. He has produced Ex.P27 to 29 the RTC extracts and in those RTC extracts Ex.P27, 28, his name is appearing along with co-owners. He also has produced sugar cane bills at Ex.P30 and they are not standing in his name. But, however, his occupation as agriculturist cannot be ruled out in view of production of RTC extracts produced by him and this fact is not denied by any of the respondents. 32. The accident is of the year 2018 and as per the guidelines of KSLSA, in the absence of material evidence - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 with regard to income, the notional income for the year 2018 is to be assessed at Rs.11,750/- However, as the claimant is an agriculturist stated to have been growing commercial crops, in the absence of other materials, if Rs.15,000/- is taken as the notional income of the claimant per month, it would meet the ends of justice. As it is assessed by the doctor, that he has suffered permanent disability to the whole body to the extent of 80%, there is loss of future income due to disability i.e., (Rs.15,000/-X 80%) Rs.12,000/- per month. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi1, 40% i.e., Rs.4,800/- is to be added towards future prospects which comes to (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,800/-) Rs.16,800/- which would be the monthly income of the claimant. To this Rs.16,800/- to be multiplied with 12 to reckon annual income. As his age is 28 years, the proper multiplier as per Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr2 applicable is `17’. Therefore, 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 Rs.16,800/- x 12 months x 17 =Rs.34,27,200/- as against Rs.23,97,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Thus, the loss of income due to disability would be Rs.34,27,200/-. 33. Sofar as compensation under the head `pain and suffering’, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/-. This injury must have idled the claimant at least for a period of three months and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of income during treatment period. Sofar as other heads are concerned i.e., nourishment, attendant charges, loss of amenities conveyance charges and Medical Expenses, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the same on the basis of record. We do not find any error in such finding. 34. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards artificial limb though claimant has stated about the same and has produced the photographs for having purchased the same. In view of the present day conditions, as well as requirement of artificial right limb, so also the change of the same in due course of time, if the claimant is awarded compensation towards replacement of - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 right limb, if Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for the compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount Rs. 1. Loss of Future Income due to disability 34,27,200-00 2. Pain and Suffering 1,00,000-00 3. Nourishment & attendant charges 50,000.00 4. Loss of Happiness & future amenities 30,000.00 5. Conveyance & incidental charges 20,000-00 6. Medical Expenses 8,50,737-00 7. Towards artificial limb 3,00,000-00 Total 47,77,937-00 Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 44,53,537-00 Enhancement 3,24,400-00 35. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.47,77,937/- under all the relevant heads. 36. It is held that the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 owned and driven by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 never denies about issuance of the policy and its validity on the date of accident. It is contended by respondent no.2 that, its liability is subject to terms and conditions of policy. No document is produced to show about violation of any policy conditions. Therefore, as rightly held by the Tribunal, both the respondents are held liable for compensation and therefore, respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation amount together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. However, the claimant is not entitled for any interest on Rs.3,00,000/- towards purchase of artificial limb. 37. Resultantly, aforesaid points are answered in favour of claimant-petitioner. Accordingly, we pass the following: - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 ORDER (i). MFA No. 102202/2024 filed by the Insurer is dismissed. MFA No.103058/2024 is allowed in-part. (ii). Claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.47,77,937/- as against Rs.44,53,537/-and there shall be enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,24,400/-. (iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally are held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.2 to deposit the said enhanced compensation together with interest @6%p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment before the Tribunal. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1441-DB MFA No. 102202 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 103058 of 2024 (iv) Sofar as the apportionment and deposit of the compensation amount and its disbursement so ordered by the Tribunal, it is maintained. (v) There shall be a modified award accordingly. (vi) Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. (vii) The Registry is further directed to transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK/ct:VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37