- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO. 101902 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: HANAMANTH BASAPPA DOLLIN, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (PRESENTLY NIL), R/O. TIMMAPUR, TQ & DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANOJ SHIVAPPA RATHOD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.9, GOVIND NIVAS, PRAGATI JUDGT NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR, TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101, 2. THE MANAGER, HDFC GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, VIRUPAKSHAKRUPA, OPP. KIMS MAIN GATE, P. B. ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-580021. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 3. MAHANTESH PAMPANNA TALAWAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. SHRI. PAVAN ENTERPRISES, NEAR APMC, DAM ROAD, HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY-583201, NOW VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALADAGI ROAD, MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT-587101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND AWARD COMPENSATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.10.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-4, BAGALKOT, IN MVC NO.410/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 18.10.2022 passed in MVC No.410/2020 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member of MACT-IV, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, for short). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 18.03.2020 at about 5:00 a.m., the claimant was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-28/D-4604 driven by its driver on National Highway No.63. The driver of the said lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed to the parked lorry and caused the accident. As a result of accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries, he was hospitalized and provided first aid treatment at Primary Health Centre, Yallapura and thereafter he was shifted to Dr.Guled Ortho Cares Hospital, Bagalkot. He was inpatient in the said hospital for quite period of time. Doctor performed surgery on his both legs below the knee and were amputed. It is averred that the claimant spent more than ₹5,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance etc., and due to the accidental injuries, the claimant suffered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 permanent disability and is unable to continue his avocation of driving. Hence, claim petition is filed seeking compensation. 3. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 entered appearances opposed the claim petition by denying the age, income, avocation, accident and disability suffered by the claimant in the road accident and sought for dismissal of the appeal. The injured claimant examined himself as PW1 and the treated doctor as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R6. The Tribunal on analyzing the evidence has assessed the income of the injured at ₹12,000/- per month, assessed the disability at 65% and awarded total compensation of ₹25,07,905/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization by directing the respondents to pay the compensation. 4. Learned counsel Sri. Siddappa Sajjan appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the disability, income of the deceased and has awarded meager compensation to the injured claimant without appreciating the fact that the claimant was aged about - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 21 years at the time of accident and both legs of the claimant were amputed below the knee and he is unable to carry out his avocation of driving due to the disability suffered by him in the road accident. Hence, he seeks to reassess the income, disability and award just compensation. 5. Per contra, Sri S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 jointly submit that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is as per the evidence available on record and does not call for any enhancement. It is submitted that the Tribunal taking note of the fact that both the legs of the claimant were amputed below the knee, awarded compensation under the head of artificial limb and observed that he can do other avocation other than driving. Hence, there cannot be any assessment of disability at 100% as claimed by the claimant. It is submitted that the award of compensation in all heads is just and proper and seek to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 respondents and meticulously perused the materials available on record, including the Tribunal records. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. The only point that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is; “Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?” 8. The above point is answered in the ‘affirmative’ for the following reasons. (a) The pleading and evidence on record indicates that in a road accident dated 18.03.2020 the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was provided treatment at Hubli Hospital and at Dr.Guled Ortho Cares Hospital, Bagalkot. The evidence on record indicates that both the legs of the injured claimant were amputed below the knee. It is also not in dispute that PW.2 is the treated Doctor and has entered witness box and deposed that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 81.88% to the whole body. Considering the oral testimony of PW.2 and the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 Tribunal assessed the disability at 65%. In our considered view, the Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring certain facts more particularly that the injured claimant was a driver by avocation and due to the amputation, he is not in a position to continue with his avocation. ( b ) It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Another1 where it has laid down certain guidelines for ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment at paragraphs-13 and 14 has observed as under: 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 1 (2011)1 SCC 343 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 14.For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.” (Emphasis supplied) (c) To assess the disability of the claimant, it would also be useful to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARNAM SINGH v. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS2 whereas the relevant para reads as under: “9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this 2 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others. In the aforesaid case the injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%.” (d) The similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in earlier decision also i.e., in the case of K.JANARDHAN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER3. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “4. Applying the ratio of the cited judgment to the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that the appellant herein has also suffered a 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg had been amputated from the knee. Additionally, a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence.” 3 (2008) 8 SCC 518 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 (e) It would also be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO Vs. SRINIVAS SABATA AND ANOTHER4, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has assessed the disability up to 100% to the Carpenter, who has lost his left hand above elbow. (f) It is also useful to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JAKIR HUSSEIN Vs. SABIR AND OTHERS5. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “15. Further, with respect to the permanent disablement suffered by the appellant, Mr. K. Parameshwar, the learned amicus curiae, has rightly submitted that the appellant was examined by Dr. P.K. Upadhyay in order to prove his medical condition and the percentage of permanent disability. The doctor who has treated him stated that the appellant has one long injury from his arm up to the wrist. Due to this injury, the doctor has stated that the appellant had great difficulty to move his shoulder, wrist and elbow and pus was coming out of the injury even two years after the accident and the treatment taken by him. The doctor further stated in his evidence that the appellant got delayed joined fracture in the humerus bone of his right hand with wiring and nailing and that he had suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same. He was once again operated upon during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and he was hospitalised for 10 days. The appellant was present in person in the High Court and it was observed and noticed by the High Court that the right hand of the appellant was completely crushed and deformed. In view of the doctor's evidence in this case, 4 (1976) 1 SCC 289 5 (2015) SCCR 380 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 the Tribunal and the High Court have erroneously taken the extent of permanent disability at 30% and 55% respectively for the calculation of amount towards the loss of future earning capacity, No doubt, the doctor has assessed the permanent disability of the appellant at 55%. However, it is important to consider the relevant fact namely that the appellant is a driver and driving the motor vehicle is the only means of livelihood for himself as well as the members of his family. Further, it is very crucial to note that the High Court has clearly observed that his right hand was completely crushed and deformed. In the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), this Court specifically gave the illustration of a driver who has permanent disablement of hand and stated that the loss of future earnings capacity would be virtually 100%. Therefore, clearly when it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss caused to the appellant since he will never be able to work as a driver again. The contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability. Hence, the loss of earning is determined by us at 54,000/- per annum. Thus, by applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the total loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at ₹ 54,000×168,64,000/-.” (g) Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra and taking note of the evidence of PW.2, the photographs and other medical records placed on record, we are of the considered view that the disability of the claimant is required to be re-assessed at 100% as he has lost his both the legs below the knee and he was aged 21 years at the time of the accident and was driver - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 by avocation. Accordingly, we re-assess the functional disability at 100% for the purpose of determination of compensation. (h) The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.12,000/- per month. Admittedly, the claimant has not placed any material on record to assess the income. As per the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA, to an unskilled labour, this Court and Lok Adalat assessed notional income at Rs.13,750/- per month for the year 2020. In the case on hand, the injured is a driver and produced his driving licence as to prove that he is driver of the transport vehicle as well as non- transport vehicle. Taking note of his avocation, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if we re- assess the income of the injured notionally at Rs.16,000/- per month. It is needless to state that the injured claimant is also entitled to an addition of 40% under the head of loss of future prospects. As regards future prospects, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company limited & Another6, at paragraph-31 has held as under: 6 (2023) 3 SCC 439 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 “31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases – and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death. (Emphasis supplied) Our view also gains support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU DEO YADAV V. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.7 and also from the case of JAGDISH v. MOHAN AND ORS.8 Thus, the injured claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity is here under: Rs.16,000 + 40%=22,400 X 12 X 18 X 100% = Rs.48,38,400/- (i) The injured claimant was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and was a bachelor. The Tribunal 7 AIR 2020 SC 4424 8 AIR 2018 SC 1347 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 taking note of the said factors awarded Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life and future marriage prospectus. We are of the considered view that, in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the aforesaid head. (j) The findings of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence and liability is unaltered. (k) The injured claimant is entitled to modified compensation on the following heads: Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.57,61,505/- as against Rs.25,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation amount shall carries interest at Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Pain and suffering 1,50,000/- Medical expenses 2,13,105/- Transportation, nourishment, Conveyance, attendant charges 10,000/- Towards purchase of artificial limb and also for future medical expenses 2,50,000/- Towards loss of amenities of life and future marriage prospectus 3,00,000/- Loss of future earning capacity 48,38,400/- Total Compensation 57,61,505/- - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. In result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.57,61,505/- as against Rs.25,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. d) Respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Respondent No.2 shall deposit 70% of the compensation amount with accrued interest and respondent No.4 shall deposit 30% of the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10266-DB MFA No. 101902 of 2023 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement of enhanced compensation shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. f) Registry to transmit the amount in deposit as well as records, if any, to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK, RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33