- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4597 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. MOHAMMAD RAFI A, S/O ADAM MUSLIYAR @ ADAM FAISI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT GANDHINAGAR HOUSE, KADAMBAR POST, KALIYOOR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 323. PRESENTLY R/AT NATEKAL HOUSE, MANJANADY POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D K DISTRICT-574 199. …APPELLANT (BY SRI JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. K ABDULLA, S/O ABOOBACKER HAJEE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KUTTUKAN HOUSE, SYED NAGAR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SALDHANA COMPLEX, BALMATTA, MANGALURU-575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.01.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1529/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal, even though it is slated for admission. 3. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and needs enhancement. The petitioner claiming that he was working in a hotel at Saudi Arabia earning Rs.42,500/- per month, claims compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident dated 16.02.2018 near Uppala of Kasargod District in Kerala, while he was a pillion rider on the motorcycle - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 bearing No.KA-04-HW-3624. It is his contention that the lorry bearing No.KL-59-D-1071 was proceeding in front and it suddenly came on the extreme right side, resulting in the lorry dashing against the motorcycle and the petitioner sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital, where he was inpatient for about 05 days. Petitioner contends that he had sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in disability and therefore, he claimed adequate compensation from the owner and insurer of the lorry. 4. The petition was opposed by the Insurance Company contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and imaginary and there was no such negligence on the part of the lorry driver. It also contended that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and it had proceeded to record the evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 5. On behalf of the petitioner, three witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. The copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R1. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,23,900/- under the following heads: SL. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) 1 Pain and sufferings 45,000/- 2 Medical expenses 52,900/- 3 Food, attendant and conveyance charges 8,000/- 4 Loss of income during treatment period 18,000/- TOTAL 1,23,900/- 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and that it has not considered the disability suffered by the petitioner, as spoken by PW.2- Dr.S.K.Mankar. It is his contention that the Tribunal has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 not awarded any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities in life', while incorrectly rejecting any functional disability which otherwise could have entitled the petitioner to claim under the head of 'loss of income due to disability'. 8. Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would contend that the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate, proper and correct and therefore, no indulgence is required. 9. The fact that there was an accident involving the lorry owned and insured by the respondents is not in dispute. Even otherwise, the petitioner being the pillion rider, is entitled for compensation from any one of the torfeasors. 10. The medical records that were produced before the Tribunal show that the petitioner had sustained deep laceration over the left hypochondrium and few other - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 lacerated wounds. As per the Wound Certificate, the blunt injury to the abdomen was only grievous injury and the PW.2 has stated that on clinical and regular examination, it showed multiple fluid levels due to the chronic intestinal obstruction and post operative adhesions. Ultimately, he came to the conclusion that there is 18% disability. 11. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that there is no functional disability to the petitioner on account of grievous injury sustained by him and therefore, declined to grant any compensation under the head of 'loss of income on account of disability'. However, the records reveal that petitioner had sustained the grevious injuries to the abdomen, which was in the form of blunt injury resulting in certain complications. This Court doesn’t find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that there is no functional disability. 12. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 sufferings' appears to be on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period', notes that there is no evidence on record to prove the income of the petitioner and therefore, it adopted a notional income of Rs.9,000/-. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok- adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.12,500/- for the year 2018. Therefore, in umpteen number of judgments it is held that the notional income prescribed by the KSLSA is in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, they are acceptable. Therefore, considering the laid up period to be three months, the 'loss of income during the laid up period' is calculated as Rs.12,500/- X 3 = Rs.37,500/-. 13. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities in life', even though it rejected the claim under the head of 'loss - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 of income due to disability'. Therefore, the petitioner needs to be compensated adequately under the said head. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities in life'. 14. The compensation under the remaining heads do not require any enhancement. 15. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below: 16. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.64,500/- with interest and therefore, PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) Pain and suffering 50,000/- Medical expenses 52,900/- Food, attendant and conveyance charges 8,000/- Loss of income during laid up period 37,500/- Loss of amenities in life 40,000/- 1,88,400/- 1,23,900/- TOTAL Less awarded by Tribunal Enhancement 64,500/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39086 MFA No. 4597 of 2021 the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.64,500/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. (iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20