- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101625 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O. YELLAPPA MALAGI @ MALAPUR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SALAKINAKOPPA, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. 2. YALLAPPA S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA MALAPUR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SALAKINKOPPA, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C.BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) AND: NAVEEN S/O. NAGAPPA NAGARAJ KOLHAPUR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT AND BARBER, R/O. SALAKINKOPPA, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, AMICUS CURIE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.09.2016 PASSED IN M.V.C NO.895/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. AT DHARWAD AND DISMISS THE SAID CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mrutyunjaya, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed by the respondents- appellants herein, namely the owner and driver of the vehicle, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.09.2016 passed in MVC No.895/2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional MACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The claimant–respondent herein filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) against the respondents, seeking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- in respect of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.04.2011 at about 1:00 p.m., while the claimant was working as a Hamal and travelling in a tractor bearing registration No.KA-17/222, owned by the respondents, for the purpose of loading hen fertilizer. It is averred in the claim petition that the tractor was being driven by respondent No.1 and that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is specifically alleged that respondent No.1, without taking any precaution, suddenly turned the tractor on a mud road, causing it to topple, resulting in the accident. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized as an inpatient for a period of 75 days across various hospitals. It is further stated that the claimant incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, and at the time of the accident, he was aged 16 years. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 4. Upon entering appearance, the respondents denied the occurrence of the accident and disputed the averments made in the claim petition. 5. The mother of the claimant was examined as PW.1, and a doctor was examined as PW.2. The claimant also got 17 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P17. The respondents–appellants herein examined themselves as RW.1 and RW.2 and produced 1 document, which was marked as Exhibit R1. 6. Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the respondents–appellants herein, submits that the claimant was not working as a Hamal and was not travelling in the offending vehicle in the course of employment under the respondents. It is contended that the claimant had boarded the tractor without the knowledge of respondent No.1—the driver and that the accident occurred due to the claimant’s own negligence. It is further submitted that the driver of the tractor was not rash or negligent in his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 driving. Learned counsel also contends that the disability as claimed by the claimant, and as certified by the doctors, is incorrect and far from the truth. He further submits that the compensation awarded under various heads is either excessive or involves duplication. 7. Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the claimant–respondent herein, submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. He contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal constitutes just and reasonable compensation. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the evidence available on record. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 9. The injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that occurred on 07.04.2011 involving the tractor bearing registration No.KA-17/222 are not seriously in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 dispute. The learned counsel for the appellants made earnest efforts to persuade this Court that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. However, the evidence on record is insufficient to accept such a submission. 10. Another ground urged by the respondents pertains to the extent of disability sustained by the claimant. The claimant filed an interlocutory application seeking permission to produce additional documents, including certain photographs. The photographs so produced depict the claimant riding a Pulsar motorcycle in a seemingly effortless manner and, in another, performing haircutting work while standing. This is contrary to the earlier submission made before this Court that the claimant was wheelchair-bound. In view of the serious contentions raised, this Court, by order dated 06.08.2024, directed a re-examination of the claimant’s disability by a Medical Board constituted by the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubballi. Pursuant to this direction, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 Medical Board submitted a report dated 03.06.2025, certifying that the claimant suffers from 67% disability of the right lower limb. It is further certified that his condition is likely to improve with therapeutic exercises. However, the certificate issued by the Medical Board does not assess the functional disability of the claimant with reference to the nature of work he was performing prior to the accident. 11. It is a settled position of law that, for the purpose of awarding compensation, the Court is not bound to rely solely on the extent of physical disability. The functional disability, which reflects the actual impact of the injury on the earning capacity and work performance of the injured, must be assessed independently. The extent of functional disability varies from case to case, depending on the nature of work previously undertaken by the injured. While the Medical Board has assessed 67% disability of the right lower limb, a perusal of the photographs produced along with the interlocutory - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 application indicates that the said percentage need not be accepted in its entirety for the purpose of assessing functional disability. Having regard to the overall evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the functional disability of the claimant can be reasonably assessed at 40%. 12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under 10 different heads. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the evidence on record, this Court finds that the compensation awarded under certain heads is excessive. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience caused to the parents during the claimant’s treatment and Rs.2,00,000/- towards attendant charges. The compensation under these two heads is duplication. Considering that the claimant was an inpatient for 75 days, this Court is inclined to retain the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards attendant charges and accordingly deletes the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 granted for inconvenience caused to the parents during the treatment. Further, the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded towards the purchase of equipment is found to be on the higher side. There is no evidence on record specifying the nature, description, or details of such equipment. The compensation granted under this head, therefore, lacks any basis. In view of the same, the said amount is modified to Rs.50,000/-. 13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medication. However, the evidence on record is silent regarding the nature of further treatment required and the estimated cost of such medication. In the absence of such evidence, the compensation awarded under this head is found to be excessive. Nevertheless, considering that the claimant was an inpatient for 75 days and in view of the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the necessity for some form of future medication cannot be disputed. Accordingly, this Court awards a sum of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medication in place of the Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,29,200/- towards loss of future earnings, based on an assessment of 70% permanent disability to the whole body. However, in light of this Court’s finding of functional disability at 40%, the compensation awarded under this head requires modification. Accordingly, assessing the functional disability at 40%, the compensation towards loss of future earnings is adjusted to Rs.3,02,400/-. 15. The total compensation is hereby re-computed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Modified compensation (in Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 2,00,000 2,00,000 2. Inconvenience caused to the parents during the treatment 1,00,000 - 3. Medical Expenses 3,12,470 3,12,470 4. Loss of future earnings (3500x12x18x40%) 5,29,200 3,02,400 5. Loss of amenities 2,00,000 2,00,000 6. Loss of conveyance, 50,000 50,000 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 food & nourishment etc., 7. Attendant Charges 2,00,000 2,00,000 8. Loss of marriage prospects 25,000 25,000 9. Expensed to be incurred for purchase of equipments 1,50,000 50,000 10. Future Medications 5,00,000 1,00,000 Total 22,66,670 14,39,870 16. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs.22,66,670/- awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs.14,39,870/-. 17. In view of the foregoing observations, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award in MVC No.895/2011 dated 24.09.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, is modified by reducing compensation to Rs.14,39,870/-. (iii) The investment and rate of interest as ordered by the Tribunal is maintained. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8302-DB MFA No. 101625 of 2017 This Court records the appreciation for valuable assistance rendered by learned counsel Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, as Amicus Curiae. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48