- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100276 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. MALLIKARJUN SHIVALINGAPPA SANIKOPPA, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. PLOT NO. 479, SECTOR NO.3, SHIVABASAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V A, ADV) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT BELAGAVI-590001. 2. KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT MOTOR BRANCH, VISHVESHWAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010, BY MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.06.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.24/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-V, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 04.06.2014 passed in M.V.C. No.24 of 2013 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member of M.A.C.T.- V, Belagaum. (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 23.06.2012, the petitioner was proceeding towards the bus-stop near Ganapathi Temple at Chennamma Circle, as a pedestrian on the opposite side. At that time, a Tavera car bearing registration No.KA-22/G- 657 came from the Deputy Commissioner's office side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and hence, filed a claim petition - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 4. Respondents filed the statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the vehicle was insured as of the date of accident and the policy was valid. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the respondents. 5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 19 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-19. In rebuttal, the respondents examined the driver as RW-1 and no documentary evidence was marked. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 part with costs and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,17,600/- with interest and directed respondent No.2/KGID to deposit the entire compensation amount, after deducting the interim compensation if deposited by it. 8. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the disability assessed by it are on a lower side. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The point that arises for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation. 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Reg. Quantum of compensation: 15. The petitioner was aged about 56 years as of the date of accident. The accident is of the year 2012. The petitioner, to prove the income, has not produced any evidence. In the absence of credible proof of income, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 this Court assesses the notional income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, the accident is of the year 2012, thus, the monthly notional income of the petitioner is assessed at Rs.6,500/-. 16. The petitioner to prove the disability suffered by him, examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor has deposed that he has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and has issued the Disability Certificate marked as Ex.P-18, which discloses that the petitioner has suffered a disability to the extent of 30%. He has also deposed that he has noticed that the petitioner walks limping on the left lower limb with antalgic gait, there is a big operated scar on the left knee joint placed vertically and extending upper 1/3rd of the left leg, it is 8" in length. The locking compression plate (LCP) is in situ in the lateral condyle of the upper end of the left tibia bone and in the left knee joint. There are 5 big screws in situ in the upper end of the left - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 tibia bone and 2 small screws in situ in the upper 1/3rd of the left tibia bone; tenderness elicited in the lateral condyle of the upper end of the left tibia bone in the left knee joint. 17. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also the evidence of PW-2, this Court reassessed the disability at 15% and awards the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of future earning capacity (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 15% x‘9’) 1,05,300/- 2. Towards medical expenses 82,800/- 3. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.6,500X3) 19,500/- 4. Pain and suffering 40,000/- 5. Food, diet and nourishment 20,000/- 6. Conveyance and other sundry expenses. 20,000/- 7. Towards loss of amenities 25,000/- Total: 3,12,600/- LESS Compensation awarded by the Tribunal : 2,17,600/- Enhanced compensation: 95,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 18. In all, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,12,600/- as against Rs.2,17,600/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.95,000/-. 19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. iii. The petitioner is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.95,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. iv. However, the petitioner is not entitled for interest for the delay of 2,240 days in filing this appeal, as per the order of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2024. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12337 MFA No. 100276 of 2022 v. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi. On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to release the entire enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest in favour of the petitioner. vii. The office is directed to transmit the TCRs to the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE SKS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9