- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15959 MFA No. 101919 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101919 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DURGAPPA S/O. HANAMANT KARIGAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O: KUNNAL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SOURABH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI MARITAMMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA KALASANNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BANDARHALLI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001, (OWNER OF SPLENDOR MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA 24/J/5144). …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.S. TIGADIKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MVC ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1437/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RAMDURG BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL TO MEET THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING 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:15959 MFA No. 101919 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) The matter was heard on appellant’s side on 10.11.2025. There was no representation on respondent's side on call on the said day. To give fair opportunity to the respondent to make his submission, the matter was ordered to be listed on this day and accordingly, the matter is listed on this day. However, even on this day, there is no representation on respondent’s side on call. 2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramdurg (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) through orders in M.V.C. No.1437/2013 dated 29.04.2015, the claimant therein presented the present appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15959 MFA No. 101919 of 2015 3. Learned counsel who represented the appellant Sri.Sourabh submitted that the appellant sustained a grievous head injury in a road traffic accident. He got admitted at hospital in a critical condition. A surgery was held. However, as his neurological condition was deteriorating, another surgery was conducted within a span of 5 days. The appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 23 days. However, he could not regain his health. The appellant produced the evidence of PW-2 to establish the aspect of disability. But discarding the evidence of PW-2, the Tribunal awarded very meager sum as compensation. Learned counsel states that no compensation was awarded either towards loss of future earnings or for loss of earnings during laid up period. Learned counsel further submits that the Doctor who conducted both the surgeries is a top ranked Doctor and one among the five in the country. The said Doctor being busy, could not be secured for producing before the Court to give evidence. The appellant produced the evidence of the Doctor who - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15959 MFA No. 101919 of 2015 gave follow-up treatment. But, only due to non-examining the Doctor who conducted surgeries, the appellant could not get compensation adequately. Learned counsel thereby seeks for award of compensation to the extent claimed. 4. By the contents of Ex.P.5-Wound Certificate, it is clear that the appellant sustained fracture of skull bones and there was internal brain hemorrhage. The evidence of PW-2-Dr.Chandrashekar Tarikere Ranganatha Shetty is that he is a Neuro Psychiatrist working at Civil Hospital, Belgaum and he examined the appellant for 3 separate days and evaluating his mental status, came to a conclusion that the permanent mental disability is 45% to 50%. Having considered the evidence of PW-2 coupled with the relevant medical record produced, this Court is of the view that the disability of the appellant in respect of whole body can be considered to be 10%. 5. As per the version of the appellant, by doing coolie work, he was earning Rs.250/- per day. The accident - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15959 MFA No. 101919 of 2015 occurred in the year 2012. In the absence of any proof with regard to the actual earnings of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.6,500/- per month which figure is being considered for the relevant period by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad for settlement of claims. The medical record reveals that the appellant was aged around 36 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 case is ‘15’. Thus, taking the notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month, applying the appropriate multiplier ‘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 comes to Rs.1,17,000/- (Rs.6500 x 12 x 15 x 10%). 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15959 MFA No. 101919 of 2015 6. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 23 days. During the course of treatment, he underwent surgeries twice. Hence, considering these aspects, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 3 months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500 x 3). Therefore, the total amount which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is Rs.1,36,500/- (Rs.1,17,000 + Rs.19,500). 7. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15959 MFA No. 101919 of 2015 Tribunal, Ramdurg through orders in M.V.C. No.1437/2013 dated 29.04.2015 is enhanced by Rs.1,36,500/-. (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 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of three months. (v) On deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13