- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101908 OF 2014 (MV-) BETWEEN: VAGGESHA REDDY S/O. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, @ CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AMBALI VILLAGE IN H.B HALLI TQ, NOW R/O: KOTTUR TOWN, KUDLIGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SENTHIL MURUGAN N S/O. NACHI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: ARULVINAYAGA DRIVING SCHOOL, 3A3, SELAM ROAD, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. 2. KUMARVEL K. S/O. KALIANNAN SENTHIL MURUGAN N S/O NACHI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: O6/1038/A, E B COLONY, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY BRANCH, BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AWARD DATED 16.01.2013 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM MEMBER VI MACT. AT: KUDLIGI IN MVC NO.1161/2012 WITH 18% INTEREST AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 16.11.2013 in M.V.C.No.1161/2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge cum Member, VI M.A.C.T., Kudligi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. On 25.04.2011, the petitioner, along with his friend, was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/J- 5741 from Ambali to go to Hospet, on NH-13 road. At that time, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.TN-28/AF-3093 came from the Hospet en route M.M. Halli, at a great speed and was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner fell down left side of the road and the right wheel of the tractor ran over the right leg of the petitioner and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 2.2. In the said accident, the friend of the petitioner was also sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased also filed the claim petitioner in M.V.C. No.617/2011. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together. 3. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle appeared through the counsel however, did not file a statement of objections. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions. Based on the pleadings of the parties, framed separate issues and recorded the common evidence. 6. Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.617/2011 was examined as PW-1, the petitioner in M.V.C. No.1161/2012 was examined himself as PW-2, examined the doctor as PW-3 and marked the 22 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-22. Conversely, the respondents before the tribunal neither led any oral nor documentary evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 16.11.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,07,400/- and directed the owner and Insurance Company to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 8. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 76%. He submits that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is unable to do any agricultural activities after the accident. He also submits that before the accident, he was hale and healthy. He further submits that the petitioner has examined the doctor as PW-3, who opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 76% to the lower limb and he has issued a disability certificate as per Ex.P-12. He submits that the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 30% which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and also the petitioner, having suffered injuries in the road traffic accident, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-3, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/Lorry. Regarding quantum of compensation: 15. The petitioner has contended that he was an agriculturalist and used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and because of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the petitioner is unable to carry out any agricultural activities due to the permanent disability. The petitioner, to prove his income, he has not produced any income proof. The accident occurred in 2011. As per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income is to be assessed at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 Rs.6,000/- p.m. The petitioner was about 35 years old as of the date of the accident. 40% future prospects is to be added to the income in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1. The petitioner was admitted as an inpatient for 14 days from 26.04.2011 to 08.05.2011. The petitioner has examined the doctor as PW3, who has deposed that he is an Orthopedic Surgeon and that the petitioner sustained grievous open fracture and the petitioner's right leg was amputated, and he has given 76% disability to the lower limb and he has also issued the disability certificate as per Ex.P- 12. The petitioner has produced the photographs, which disclose that the right leg of the petitioner was amputated. Considering the evidence of PW-3 and the disability certificate marked as Ex.P-12, the disability assessed by the Tribunal i.e., at 30% is on the lower side. This Court reassesses the permanent disability of the petitioner at 60% to the whole body. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16 to the age group of the petitioner. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner is worked out as follows: 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 Rs.6,000+2,400 (40% of Rs.6,000/-) = Rs.8,400/- Rs.8,400 x 12 x 16 x 60% = 9,67,680/- 16. Thus, this Court on re-assessment of entire evidence on record, awards the compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. HEADS AMOUNT 1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.80,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- 4. Special diet, conveyance and incidental charges Rs.15,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.42,000/- 7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs.9,67,680/- 8. Future medical expenses Rs.1,50,000/- Total Rs.13,94,680/- Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,07,400/- Enhanced compensation Rs.9,87,280/- 17. Thus in all, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,94,680/- as against Rs.4,07,400/- awarded by the Tribunal i.e., to enhanced compensation of Rs.9,87,280/-. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum is answered accordingly. 18. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12820 MFA No. 101908 of 2014 ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 16.11.2013 in M.V.C.No.1161/2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge cum Member, VI M.A.C.T., Kudligi, is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.9,87,280/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization. (iv) The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) The office is directed to transmit the trial Court records to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10