- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23901 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI. ASHOK POMANNA PATIL, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KOUNDAL, TAL: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. PRASHANT S. KOUJALAGI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: OWNER, R/O.297, CHANNAMMA NAGAR, BELGAUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C NO.744/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT-III COURT AND MACT BELGAUM, AT: BELGUAM, DATED 03.07.2012, BY ALLOWING APPEAL WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 03.07.2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 744/2008 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track III Court & MACT, Belgaum [for short, ‘the Tribunal’]. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 2. It is the case of the claimant that he met with accident on 08.03.2008 by a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-22- A-4816 due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver and in the said accident he sustained grievous injuries. As a consequence of the injury, he lost vision of his right eye. He further contended that he was aged about 34 years, serving as a Turner and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has been suffering from permanent disability and lost his earning capacity. With these reasons prayed to award compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 3. Respondent No.2-insurer filed written statement denying the contention of the claim petitioner. It is further contended that claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. Therefore his liability is not covered under the policy of insurance. Hence it is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that liability of the insurer 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. With these reasons he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal on consideration of rival claims has framed necessary issues. The petitioner to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW1 and 2 and got marked six documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.6. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked two documents, i.e., policy of insurance and the letter of authorization given to the RW1 to lead evidence, as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 5. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record the Tribunal held that accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the lorry by its driver. The claimant was not a gratuitous passenger in the said lorry and Tribunal also assessed age of the claimant as 34 years, his income as Rs.3,000/- per month, assessed permanent disability at 20%, applied multiplier at 16 and awarded the following amount of compensation under different heads: 1. Injury, pain and agony, i.e., loss of one eye resulting loss of vision permanently as per compendium of Medico Legal Information for easy settlement of Motor Accident Cases in Lok Adalat by Justice K. Shridhar Rao 50,000.00 2. Medical expenses Nil 3. Nursing, attendant charge, extra nourishment & conveyance 5,000.00 4. Loss of earning during treatment 3,000.00 5. Loss of future earning 1,15,000.00 6. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 15,000.00 Total 1,88,000.00 6. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has taken the disability as 20% which is not in accordance with the evidence of PW2, who is an ophthalmologist. He has given disability to the whole body at 40%. Even if it is considered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1953, for loss of vision of one eye, the disability ranges from 30 to 40% depending upon the other complications. 8. In the present case, as per the evidence of PW2 there is disfigurement of face due to the injuries sustained by the claimant. In all the probabilities, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability as 40% but it erroneously taken it as 20%. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side which needs to be enhanced. 9. In support of his arguments he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayanandan Vs. Varkey & Ors [SLP [C] No. 22423/2024], wherein it is held that for loss of vision - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 the disability could be computed at 100% and the same ratio could be applied to the facts of the present case. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act the disability for loss of one eye vision is 30% and in this case the claimant is a Coolie. Therefore, this Court cannot consider the disability either at 40% or 100% as held in the case of Jayanandan stated supra. The facts and circumstances of the case before the Apex Court was totally different from the facts of the present case. Hence, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further contends that the Tribunal after assessment of the facts and circumstances, awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for interference by this Court. 11. The only question which arises for determination is whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 12. The said question is answered partly in the affirmative for the following reasons. 13. The claimant has stated that he has lost complete vision of right eye, he was thoroughly cross examined but nothing was brought out to disbelieve it. On the contrary, the demeanor of the witness was recorded in the deposition by the learned Presiding Officer during the cross examination of PW1 that the claimant was not in a position to see any object from his right eye. 14. The claimant examined PW2, who is an Ophthalmologist. He assessed disability and also opined that claimant lost eye ball of right eye and loss of vision as well as facial disfigurement. He assessed disability at 40% to the whole body. In his cross examination the said facts were denied but nothing was brought out to disbelieve it. 15. The Tribunal has assessed disability at 20% without any basis. According to Schedule I Part II Sl. Nos. 25 and 26 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 loss of one - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 eye without complications and other being normal, percentage of loss of earning capacity is 40%; Loss of vision of one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eye ball, the other being normal percentage of loss of earning capacity is 30%. In this case as per the evidence of PW2 there is loss of eye ball of the right eye and facial disfigurement. The claimant has to suffer throughout his life. Loss of eye ball will certainly leads to disfigurement of the face. In view of the said facts, the permanent disability has to be assessed as 40% to the whole body and hence evidence of PW2 is to be accepted. 16. The claimant has contended that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and same was accepted by the Tribunal, does not call for interference. The multiplier applicable to the case is ‘16’ which is also accepted by the tribunal and basing on the said figures, the amount of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability could be assessed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 17. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the facts of the case in Jayanandan (stated supra) is different from the facts of the present case. In the said case, the occupation of the claimant was ‘diamond cutter’. But in the present case the claimant is a coolie and stated to be working as a turner. In view of the said fact it would suffice to hold that permanent disability assessed above is just and sufficient and in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 18. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount of compensation under other heads are on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is recalculated and following amount of compensation is awarded: 1. Pain and suffering 75,000.00 2. Nursing, attendant charge, extra nourishment & conveyance 25,000.00 3. Loss of amenities 50,000.00 4. Loss of earning during treatment 20,000.00 5. Loss of future earning due to permanent disability 2,30,000.00 Total 4,00,000.00 Award of Tribunal 1,88,000.00 Enhancement 2,12,000.00 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 19. The claimant has not furnished any records to prove that he has spent any amount towards medical expenses as he has taken treatment in a Government Hospital which is free of cost. Hence, no amount of compensation is awarded or enhanced in respect of medical expenses. 20. The claimant has prayed to award compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is settled principle of law that even if the amount of compensation claimed is less or more but the Tribunal has to award just and reasonable amount of compensation. Therefore there is no need to restrict the award of compensation to Rs.3,50,000/- as prayed in the claim petition. 21. It is not in dispute that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the said amount of compensation. The respondent is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly, the above said question is - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 answered partly in the affirmative and I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER [1] Appeal is allowed in part; [2] the judgment and award dated 03.07.2012 passed in M.V.C. No. 744/2008 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track III Court & MACT, Belgaum, is modified by enhancing compensation amount of Rs.2,12,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal; [3] The insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of award; [4] Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, the Tribunal is directed to release 75% of the amount in view of prayer of the appellant-claimant and balance amount shall be invested in fixed deposit as per the award of the Tribunal. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5431 MFA No. 23901 of 2012 The trial Court records shall be sent back along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2