- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225 MFA No. 101432 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101432 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: SOMALINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA NANDYAL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJ J. APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESH CHANNABASAPPA SHIGGAVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. GUNDENAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: BYADAGI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND A.M.A.C.T. RANEBENNUR IN M.V.C.NO.127/2004 DATED 15-10- 2009 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225 MFA No. 101432 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri.Nagaraj J. Appannavar, who appears before this Court physically and represents Sri.Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel on record for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Aruna Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2, who appears through Video Conference. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, in MVC No.127/2004 dated 15.10.2009. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries in a road traffic accident apart from three other simple injuries. The injuries resulted in permanent physical disability. But without appreciating - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225 MFA No. 101432 of 2014 the evidence produced, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.45,000/- in total and aggrieved by the sum thus awarded, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that this Court taking the notional income into consideration for the relevant period and appropriate disability in respect of whole body, may pass necessary orders. 5. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained fracture of 3rd and 4th metatarsal bones of right foot and fracture of right knee joint, which are grievous in nature, apart from three other simple injuries. The appellant tried to project that the disability in respect of whole body is 55%. He placed much reliance on Exhibit P.64 - disability certificate. However, considering the contents of the said certificate and the injuries - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225 MFA No. 101432 of 2014 sustained, this Court is of the view that the disability in respect of whole body can be taken as 10%. 6. The appellant failed to produce any proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. Hence, as sought for by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that the notional income for the relevant period is required to be taken. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income for the relevant period, that is for the year 2003 for settlement of claims as Rs.3,250/-. Therefore, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.3,250/- per month. The age of the appellant as borne by medical record as on the date of accident is 38 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, is 15. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225 MFA No. 101432 of 2014 7. Thus, on taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.3,250/- per month, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as 15 and the disability in respect of whole body as 10%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is Rs.58,500/- (Rs.3,250 × 12 × 15 × 10%). 8. In the light of the injuries sustained, the appellant might have taken bed rest at least for a period of four months. Therefore, ‘loss of earnings during laid-up period’ comes to Rs.13,000/- (Rs.3,250 × 4). 9. Thus, considering the evidence produced and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation under following heads: Head of Compensation Amount (Rs.) Pain and suffering 30,000.00 Food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 5,000.00 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225 MFA No. 101432 of 2014 Loss of future earnings 58,500.00 Medical Expenses 10,000.00 Loss of income during laid-up period 13,000.00 Loss of amenities in life 10,000.00 Total 1,26,500.00 10. Thus, the above discussion makes it clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,26,500/- as compensation. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, through orders in MVC No.127/2004 dated 15.10.2009 is enhanced from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.1,26,500/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15225 MFA No. 101432 of 2014 iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18