- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816 MFA No. 100125 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100125 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI DATTA, S/O. SHANKAR KADAM, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. J-75, HINDAL COLONY, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. SHAKUNTALA, W/O. MOHAN GIRAMALLANNAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PLOT NO.29,BASAV COLONY, INDAL ROAD, BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF INNOVA CAR BEARING NO.KA-22/P-9580) &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YASH FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV.FOR R1; R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.419/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,27,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816 MFA No. 100125 of 2019 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri. Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Yash who represents Sri.Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel on record for respondent No.1. At request of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. This appeal is the outcome of award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi in MVC No.419/2018 dated 31.10.2018. 3. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 8the claimant9, for the sake of convenience of discussion) filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on the ground that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816 MFA No. 100125 of 2019 occurred in the year 2017 and that those injuries resulted in total permanent disability. The Tribunal subjecting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, Exhibits P1 to P15 and Exhibits R1 to scrutiny, held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.13,27,500/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the award thus passed the present appeal is filed by the appellant, upon whom the liability is fastened. 4. Arguing the matter, Sri.R. R. Mane, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the appellant is continuing his job still and he receives salary through the said job. The salary he receives is more than the amount which he was getting as on the date of accident. Learned counsel submits that when the claimant fails to produce any evidence to show that he lost his job, he is not entitled for any amount towards loss of future earnings. Learned counsel also states that the claimant suppressed the fact of continuation of his job even after the date of accident and thereby - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816 MFA No. 100125 of 2019 misled the Court. Stating that when the claimant receives salary and can eke out his livelihood through the said salary even after the date of accident, he is not entitled for any amount under the head loss of future earnings, but without considering that, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- towards loss of future earnings, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case between B.N. Jeevan Prakash and Shabeer Ahmad Shariff and others1. 5. The submission that is made by learned counsel who represents the claimant, on the other hand, is that the claimant was working in a private company and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by the date of accident. However, the claimant could not produce any proof in respect of his occupation and earnings. But the claimant produced Exhibit P11 - Diploma 1 IV (2007) ACC 797 (DB) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816 MFA No. 100125 of 2019 Certificate, which reveals that he possesses a Diploma in Automobile Engineering. Therefore, taking into account the absence of proof with regard to the occupation and earnings, the Tribunal held that the income of the claimant is required to be considered as Rs.15,000/- per month and accordingly, having taken the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, awarded justifiable amount under the head 8loss of future earnings9 and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. 6. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced substantive proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. The Tribunal at para 24 of the impugned order observed that the claimant has produced a pay slip to show that he was working at AEQUS, Belgaum and that he was earning Rs.17,382/- per month. Also observing that the said document was not got marked and the claimant did not examine - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816 MFA No. 100125 of 2019 his employer, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month. 7. The version of the appellant is that, the claimant continued his job even after the date of accident and he is getting his salary. On a query posed by the Court, whether such a plea was taken in the written statement filed by the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the contentions in the claim petition were denied, and thus it amounts to denial of the occupation and earnings as pleaded by the claimant. 8. The specific plea of the appellant is that, the claimant continued his job and he is earning through the said job even after the date of accident. Such being the case of the appellant, the burden is on the appellant to show that the claimant is a job holder and is receiving salary. No evidence whatsoever is produced in that regard by the appellant. Without appreciating the plea - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13816 MFA No. 100125 of 2019 of the claimant that he was doing private job and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month, basing on the educational qualification of the claimant, that is, a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in taking the notional income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/- per month and awarding a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- under the 8head loss of future earnings9. Hence, this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits. 10. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed without costs. 11. Amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal immediately. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24