- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14716 MFA No. 102924 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102924 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHIV @ SHIVRAJ S/O. ANNAPPA RAJURI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOK IN HOTEL, R/O: MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S. NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE M.D. AND SELF INSURANCE FUND, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDITIONAL MACT, DHARWAD DATED 31.12.2015 IN M.V.C.NO.87/2014 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF 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 Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:16 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14716 MFA No. 102924 of 2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Chandrashekhar S.Nagashetti, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Disputing the validity of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.87/2014 dated 31.12.2015, the claimant therein preferred the present appeal. 3. The appellant projecting himself to be a Cook, was working at one Shetty Lunch Home, Gadag Road and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by the date of accident and due to the injuries sustained, became disabled completely to do any work, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,54,000/- in total. The Tribunal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14716 MFA No. 102924 of 2016 through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.2,94,120/- as compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained degloving injury to the right foot and took extensive treatment. During the course of treatment, he underwent a surgical process and skin grafting was done. Though sufficient material was produced before the Tribunal regarding the nature of injury sustained, the treatment taken and the aspect of disability, the Tribunal awarded very meager sum as compensation and therefore, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 5. Per contra, the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the appellant does not suffer with any kind of disability whatsoever. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 12% and indeed there - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14716 MFA No. 102924 of 2016 is no disability whatsoever. Learned counsel thereby seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having considered the evidence of PW-2 and the relevant medical record, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 12% which needs no interference. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering, Rs.39,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,59,120/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities which includes conveyance and nourishment also. However, the Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards attendant charges. 7. Having considered the fact that the appellant who was aged around 28 yeas by the date of accident is left with disability of 12% in respect of whole body, this Court is of the view that the compensation granted towards loss of amenities in life is on lower side. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14716 MFA No. 102924 of 2016 granted towards loss of amenities which includes conveyance and nourishment charges. Also, having considered the extensive treatment taken by the appellant which is borne by record, this Court is of the view that the amount granted towards medical expenses that is Rs.1,000/- is on lower side. Though substantive proof is not produced regarding the medical expenses incurred, yet having regard to the fact that the appellant took treatment as inpatient for considerable period and that during the course of treatment, he underwent a surgical procedure including skin grafting and that during the course of treatment X-rays were taken and relevant pathological examination was conducted, this Court is of the view that the sum awarded as compensation towards medical expenses is on lower side. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- globally. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14716 MFA No. 102924 of 2016 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad through orders in M.V.C. No.87/2014 dated 31.12.2015 is enhanced by Rs.50,000/-. (iii) The enhanced sum 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 133 days as per orders in I.A. No.1/2016 dated 11.12.2017. (iv) Respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14716 MFA No. 102924 of 2016 (v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE RH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79