- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15371 MFA No. 100496 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100496 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN: SRI. PUNITH S/O. ANJINAPPA, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: LORRY DRIVER, R/O: SUBBARAYANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: DAR LINE POLICE QUARTERS, BALLARI-583101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. D.V. MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O. VALI SAB, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE LORRY UP-77 N-7772, R/O: MINCHERI VILLAGE, TQ: DIST: BALLARI-583101. 2. SRI. K. ISMAIL S/O. K. DASTAGIR SAB, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY UP-77 N-7772, R/O: WARD NO.13, COURT MOHALLA STREET MILLER PET, BALLARI-583101. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARVATHI NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA MAIN ROAD, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15371 MFA No. 100496 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.8.2016 IN MVC NO.1303/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-III, AT BALLARI, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFY BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri. M. K. Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Ballari, in MVC No.1303/2015 dated 31.08.2016. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. As against the claim for Rs.30,00,000/- in total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,62,600/- as - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15371 MFA No. 100496 of 2018 compensation. With a version that he is entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, one of which is the head injury. He took extensive treatment, but he is left with permanent physical disability. The appellant as a driver was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded very meagre sum as compensation. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 5. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the Tribunal awarded huge sum as compensation under each head and indeed it is respondent No.3 who should have preferred appeal. Learned counsel submits that no evidence whatsoever is produced by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15371 MFA No. 100496 of 2018 the appellant to establish his occupation as on the date of accident. Learned counsel also states that, having taken the age of the appellant as 26 years by the date of accident, the Tribunal ought to have applied 17 as multiplier as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, but it applied 18 and thereby awarded exorbitant sum towards ‘loss of future earnings’. Learned counsel further submits that the neuro behavioural disability and permanent impairment on the cognitive side combined is 42.77%. That disability is not in respect of the whole body. That apart, the appellant appeared before the Court and gave evidence without any difficulty. But without considering these facts, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 40% unjustifiably. Learned counsel also states that the appellant who claims himself to be a driver and became permanently 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15371 MFA No. 100496 of 2018 disabled to continue his work, did not even surrender his driving licence. That itself goes to show that he does not suffer with any kind of physical disability. Learned counsel also states that the appellant has not produced any evidence whatsoever to show that he is a driver by profession. Learned counsel thereby seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. The appellant admittedly sustained a lacerated wound on left side inner parietal and temporal region and he took treatment as inpatient. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, granted a sum of Rs.18,62,600/- as compensation divided under following heads: 1) Pain and sufferings Rs.60,000/- 2) For Loss of Income during laid up period Food, Diet and Nourishment Rs.50,000/- 3) For attendance, Conveyance and other Incidental Expenses Rs.50,000/- 4) For Medical Expenditure Rs.5,50,000/- 5) For Future Medical Expenses Rs.1,00,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15371 MFA No. 100496 of 2018 6) For Loss of Future Earnings (9,000x12x40/100x18) Rs.7,77,600/- 7) For Ugly Scar Rs.20,000/- 8) For Loss of Marital Prospectus Rs.30,000/- 9) For Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs.75,000/- 10) For Permanent Physical Impairment Rs.1,50,000/- Total Rs.18,62,600/- 7. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Tribunal ought to have applied Multiplier 17. But it applied Multiplier 18. That apart, the Tribunal awarded compensation under all heads, that too just and reasonable compensation. The appellant failed to produce any evidence to establish his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. The amount awarded - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15371 MFA No. 100496 of 2018 as compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ i.e. Rs.7,77,600/- is highly justifiable. 8. This Court does not find any ground whatsoever, therefore, to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal and further this Court does not find any such grounds for further enhancement. Therefore, this Court is of the view that appeal deserves dismissal. 9. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30