- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 101725 OF 2024 (MV-I) C/W. MFA NO. 101737 OF 2024 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 101725 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. RENUKA W/O. RAYAPPA MALI, AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O. CHIPPALAKATTI AND HONAKUPPI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-593107. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SUMIT S/O. SATSH RAUT, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.A/P. 17/2, LAYOUT NO.1, B.WARD, JARAG NAGAR, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-591307. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-593107. 3. ALFRED LORES DSOUZA, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.A/P. 1002, MAHAMADWADI, KRISHCHINWADI, NARDAVE, KANKAVLI TALUK, SINDHUDURG, MAHARASHTRA-593107. 4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHANBAG CHAMBER, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-593107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV. FOR R2; SRI MADHUKESHWAR DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, GOKAK, IN MVC NO.1081/2022 DATED 02/12/2023 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO. 101737 OF 2024 BETWEEN: KUMARI SUSHMITA D/O. RAYAPPA MALI, AGE 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O. CHIPPALAKATTI AND HONAKUPI VILLAGE, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-593107. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SUMIT S/O. SATISH RAUT, AGE MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. A/P. 17/2, LAYOUT NO.1, B, WARD, JARAG NAGAR, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-593107. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-593107. 3. ALFRED LORES DSOUZA AGE MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. A/P. 1002, MAHAMADWADI, KRISHCHINWADI NARDAVE, KANKAVLI TALUK, SINDHUDURG, MAHARASHTRA-593107. 4. OIRIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SHANBAG CHAMBER, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-593107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV. FOR R2; SRI MADHUKESHWAR DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, GOKAK, IN MVC NO.1082/2022 DATED 02/12/2023 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 02.12.2023, passed in MVC Nos.1082/2022 and 1081/2022 by the I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gokak, (for short “the Tribunal”). Hence, both these appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. It is the case of the claimants that on 13.02.2022 at around 9:30 a.m., the petitioners in both these petitions were travelling in an Innova Car bearing registration No. MH-09/BM-6762 on Kolhapur – Kankavali Highway. The car met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. It collided with a bus bearing registration No.MH-09/CV-3969, causing injuries. Both the claimants sustained grievous injuries, underwent treatment and incurred huge amount and they have also been suffering from permanent disability. For - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 these reasons, they have prayed for awarding compensation. 3. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the car; respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car; respondent No.3 is the owner of the bus and respondent No.4 is the insurer of the bus. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not appear before the Tribunal, while respondent Nos.2 and 4 have appeared and filed their written statements. They denied the contentions in the petitions and prayed for the dismissal of the claim petitions. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues in both the claim petitions: “ISSUES IN MVC.No.1081/2022 1. Whether petitioner proves that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762 and the bus bearing No.MH- 09/CV-3969 and in the result she sustained grievous injuries? 2. Whether the 4th respondent proves that the alleged accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762 as alleged in the objections? - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 3. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as sought in the petition? If so, at what rate and from whom? 4. What order or award? ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN MVC.No.1081/2022 1. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the alleged accident was not occurred and the Innova Car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762 is not involved in the accident. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? 2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the alleged accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Bus bearing No.MH-09/CV-39697 3. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the petitioner was an inmate in the innova car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762. Hence, she is a gratuitous passenger and the policy does not cover the inmates of the said vehicle? 4. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the Innova car was registered under the private car policy, the owner of the said car has to use the same for his personal use only. But, it was used for hire and reward. Hence, the owner of the said car has violated the terms and conditions of the policy? 5. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.MH-09/BM- 6762 was not holding a valid and effective driving license. Hence, the 15t respondent is violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ISSUES IN MVC.No.1082/2022 1. Whether petitioner proves that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 driving of the driver of the Innova car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762 and bus bearing No.MH- 09/CV-3969 and in the result she sustained grievous injuries? 2. Whether the 4th respondent proves that the alleged accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762 as alleged in the objections? 3. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as sought in the petition? If so, at what rate and from whom? 4. What order or award? ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN MVC.No.1082/2022 1. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the alleged accident was not occurred and the Innova Car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762 is not involved in the accident. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? 2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the alleged accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Transport Bus bearing No.MH-09/CV-3969? 3. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the petitioner was an inmate in the innova car bearing No.MH-09/BM-6762. Hence, she is a gratuitous passenger and the policy does not cover the inmates of the said vehicle? 4. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the Innova car was registered under the private car policy, the owner of the said car has to use the same for his personal use only. But, it was used for hire and reward. Hence, the owner of the said car has violated the terms and conditions of the policy? - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 5. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the driver of the Innova Car bearing No.MH-09/BM- 6762 was not holding a valid and effective driving license. Hence, the 1st respondent is violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?” 5. It is the contention of the appellants that, the claimant in MVC No.1082/2022 was a minor at the time of filing the claim petition and on her behalf, PW1 i.e., the claimant – petitioner in MVC No.1081/2022 was examined. The claimants got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P76. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked the documents at Exs.R1 to R3. 6. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded the following amounts of compensation in MVC No.1081/2022 as under: 1. Pain shock and suffering Rs.20,000/- 2. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period Rs.7,000/- 4. Attendant charges, diet, conveyance etc., Rs.6,000/- 5. Medicines and medical expenses Rs.95,753/- 6. Loss of future income Rs.1,68,000/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs.3,16,753/- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 7. The Tribunal awarded the compensation by assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month, determined the disability at 10% and applying multiplier of 14. Claimants feeling that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was insufficient preferred an appeal in MFA No. 101725/2024 for enhancement. 8. The facts of the accident and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the finding on issue No.1. The only question that would arise for determination is “whether the claimant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation?” 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant submits that, the Tribunal has not assessed the income of the claimant properly. The Tribunal did not award adequate compensation under all the heads. Disability assessed was also incorrect. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of compensation. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and awarded a reasonable amount of compensation, which does not warrant any interference. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not at all liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the claimant and did not fasten the liability on respondent Nos.3 and 4. The said finding does not call for any interference by this Court. Even in this appeal also, the appellant has not contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were in any way responsible for the accident in question. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal against respondent Nos.3 and 4. 12. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- p.m. The accident occurred on 13.02.2022 and the claimant was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 unable to prove her income by adducing substantial evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the claimant for awarding compensation. As per the Chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), the notional income of the victims’ of an accident, which had taken place during 2022 is Rs.14,750/-, which could be applied to the facts of present case. 13. The Tribunal assessed the compensation under the heads loss of income during laid-up period and loss of future earnings due to permanent disability based on a notional income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. In view of the revised national income, the said amounts need to be recalculated. 14. The claimant had sustained fracture of styloid process of right ulna & wrist and was admitted as an inpatient from 14.02.2022 to 02.03.2022. The treated Doctor issued a disability certificate indicating restrictions in the movement of both the right and left hands. Considering - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 these facts, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation under the head pain and suffering. 15. As per the evidence of PW2 – the Doctor, the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability of 30% in relation to the hands. However, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% based on the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, which does not warrant any interference. The claimant is also seeking enhancement of compensation under the heads loss of amenities, loss of income during laid-up period etc., considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the revised notional income as per the Chart prepared the KSLSA, the claimant in MVC No.1081/2022 (MFA No.101725/2024) is entitled to an enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the following amounts of compensation are awarded: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2. Loss of amenities & future unhappiness Rs.30,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period (Rs.14750/- x 3 months) Rs.44,250/- 4. Special diet, attendant charges & other expenses Rs.16,000/- - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 5. Medical expenses Rs.95,753/- 6. Loss of future earnings due to permanent disability (Rs.14,750/- x 12 x 14 x 10%) Rs.2,47,800/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs.4,83,803/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,16,753/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.1,67,050/- 16. Thus, the appellant – claimant in MFA No.101725/2024 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,67,050/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 17. The appellant – claimant in MFA No.101737/2024 was an adolescent, aged about 17 years at the time of accident. 18. The Tribunal awarded the following amounts of compensation in MVC No.1082/2022 as under: 1. Pain shock and suffering Rs.20,000/- 2. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period Rs.4,000/- 4. Attendant charges, diet, conveyance etc., Rs.6,000/- 5. Medicines and medical expenses Rs.2,48,658/- 6. Loss of future income Rs.1,72,746/- - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 7. Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs.4,71,404/- 19. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant was working as a coolie and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., whereas the Tribunal has assessed her income at Rs.6,000/-, considering that the claimant being an adolescent aged about 17 years, she could earn on par with the adults. There are no sufficient materials to believe that the claimant was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., therefore, the Tribunal has assessed her notional income at Rs.6,000/- p.m. As per the Chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), the notional income of the victims’ of an accident, which had taken place during 2022 is Rs.14,750/-, there is no impediment to apply the same to the fact and circumstance of the present case. Hence, income of claimant is taken as Rs.14,750/- p.m. 20. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seriously contends that since the claimant was a minor, she is not entitled to an income on par with her mother. In this case, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 the claimant was an adolescent, aged about 17 years at the time of accident, and during the pendency of the case before the Tribunal, she attained the age of majority. She was said to be working as a coolie. Due to economic backwardness of the people, it is not uncommon that minors who are capable to work, will do coolie work to eak their livelihood. Under these circumstances, there is no impediment to accept that she was earning an income on par with her mother. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not acceptable, and the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.14,750/- p.m. 21. Looking to the materials available on record, as well as the oral evidence of PW1 and the medical evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be recalculated. 22. As already stated above, since the claimant was aged about 17 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 18. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 23. PW2 in his evidence, stated that the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 40%; however the Tribunal has assessed the disability as 13.33%, which appears to be on the lower side. Considering the evidence of PW2 as well as the disability certificate at Ex.P68, the permanent disability of the claimant is reassessed at 15% to the whole body. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, the following amounts of compensation are awarded under the following heads: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2. Loss of amenities & future unhappiness Rs.30,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid-up period (Rs.14750/- x 3 months) Rs.44,250/- 4. Special diet, attendant charges & other expenses Rs.16,000/- 5. Medical expenses Rs.2,48,658/- 6. Loss of future earnings due to permanent disability (Rs.14,750/- x 12 x 18 x 15%) Rs.4,77,900/- 7. Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs.8,66,808/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,71,404/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.3,95,404/- - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 25. Thus, the appellant – claimant in MFA No.101737/2024 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,95,404/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 26. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also held them responsible for the said accident. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 27. For the aforesaid discussion, the question raised above answered partly in the affirmative and I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed in part; - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4439 MFA No. 101725 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 101737 of 2024 (ii) The judgment and award dated 02.12.2023, passed in MVC Nos.1082/2022 and 1081/2022 by the I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gokak stands modified. (iii) The appellant – claimant in MFA No.101725/2024 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,67,050/- and the appellant – claimant in MFA No.101737/2024 is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,95,404/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, on the enhanced amount compensation. (iv) The order of deposit and release ordered by the Tribunal shall hold good for the compensation awarded in this appeal. (v) Registry to send back the Trial Court Records (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment. (vi) The Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27