- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100699 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. MALLAPPA PRASAD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, ASHIRWAD MINES, NOW NIL, R/O. LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. H.G. SHRIPAD S/O. GURURAJRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O. VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.63/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IX, MUDHOL DATED 30/11/2011 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.03 12:21:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri M. K. Saudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Projecting that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- in total. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Mudhol, which entertained the case as MVC No.63/2009, passed orders on 30.11.2011 holding that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the sum thus awarded and projecting that he is entitled to higher sum, the present appeal is filed. 3. Sri.Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the appellant by working as Manager in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 a mines company, was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of accident. Due to the injuries sustained, he became permanently and completely disabled. The appellant produced sufficient evidence to show that the disability is 22% in respect of the whole body. However, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of the whole body as 11%. Learned counsel further states that, though the Tribunal initially held that the income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month, however changing its view, considering the income as Rs.3,750/- per month, awarded a very meager sum as compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ as well as towards ‘loss of income during the period of treatment’. Learned counsel further submits that, though the appellant took treatment for more than two weeks as an inpatient, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- only towards ‘attendant charges’. Learned counsel also states that, no sum is awarded as compensation - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 towards conveyance charges and food. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 4. Per contra, the submission that is made by Sri. M. K. Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant neither succeeded in establishing the fact that the disability is 22% in respect of the whole body nor in respect of other allied factors and thus the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- in total as compensation. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained a lacerated wound on right temporal region, multiple abrasions over right foot and forearm and head injury with fracture of right temporal and parietal bones. Likewise, it is not in dispute that during admission in hospital he was found with right ear bleeding. By all the evidence that is brought on record, the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 established that he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 15 days. 6. Now coming to the earnings of the appellant as on the date of accident, as per his version, by working as Manager in a mines company at Lokapur, he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. He produced Exhibit P10 - salary certificate to that effect. Discussing on the earnings of the appellant as on the date of accident, the Tribunal at page 8, para 11 of the impugned order clearly held that the monthly income of the appellant can be considered to be Rs.6,000/- and that it will meet the ends of justice. However, the Tribunal, for the purpose of calculating compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’, took the notional income as Rs.3,750/-. Having considered that the income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal taking the notional income again as Rs.3,750/- per month is unjustifiable. Also, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 respondent No.2 has not preferred any appeal disputing any of the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court considers that the income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month only. Though learned counsel for the appellant states that the disability assessed by the Tribunal, i.e., 11% in respect of the whole body, is unjustifiable, however taking into consideration the totality of evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the observation of the Tribunal in that regard needs no interference. 7. Thus, without disturbing other parameters, i.e., application of appropriate multiplier 16 and the disability in respect of the whole body as 11%, and taking the income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under the head ‘loss of future earnings’ comes to Rs.1,26,720/- (6,000 x 12 x 16 x 11%). - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 8. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, which includes fracture to right temporal and parietal bones, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of three months. Therefore, ‘loss of income during laid up period’ comes to Rs.18,000/- (Rs. 6,000 x 3). 9. Having considered the evidence produced by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation under the following heads: Head Amount (Rs.) Compensation for pain and suffering 35,000.00 Towards food, extra nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 10,000.00 Medical expenses 13,500.00 Loss of future earnings 1,26,720.00 Loss of income during laid up period 18,000.00 Loss of amenities in life 10,000.00 Total 2,13,220.00 10. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14016 MFA No. 100699 of 2014 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Mudhol through orders in MVC No.63/2009 dated 30.11.2011 is enhanced from Rs.1,36,000/- to Rs.2,13,220/-. iii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, except for the period of delay of 736 days as per orders in IA No.1/2014. 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, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53