- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23323 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARASWAMY S/O KARADI GIRIYAPPA AGE. 26 YEARS, R/O. BHUJANGANAGAR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, PRESENTLY R/AT VINAYANAKA NAGAR, CANTONMENT, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. HULIKUNTAPPA S/O NANDYALAPPA AGED MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY BEARING REG. NO. KA-35/A-4805 R/O. BOMMAGATTA VILLAGE, TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI. 2. THE MANAGER, M/S. L & T GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS IS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08-02-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.611/2012 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-IX, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 15:39:41 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC No.611/2012 vide the judgment and award dated 08.02.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Ballari (for short, “the Tribunal”). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 01.02.2012, while the claimant was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 35/L.5697, met with an accident, on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-35/A-4805, who came from the opposite direction and collided with his motor cycle. As a result, the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry. The claimant suffered grievous injuries and was admitted to the Govt. Hospital, Sandur and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 thereafter to VIMS Hospital, Ballari and subsequently to the St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru. Thus, he has spent a huge amount towards medical expenses and hence, he filed a claim petition. 4. Respondent No.1—driver of the lorry filed a statement of objections. Respondent No.1—driver of the lorry filed a memo adopting the statement of objections filed by respondent No.2. 5. Respondent No.2 the owner denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the rider of the motorcycle himself was negligent in riding the same. Respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the lorry. Since the lorry was duly insured by respondent No.3, having a valid insurance coverage in force as on the date of the accident, respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 6. Respondent No.3 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3. 7. The Tribunal framed relevant issues and after assessment of the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of ₹10,78,100/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed respondent No.3 to deposit the entire compensation along with interest. 8. The claimant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 10. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. She submits that to prove the permanent physical disability, the claimant examined the doctor as PW-3. He opined that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 90% of the whole body. Whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 70%, which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the claim petition. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the impugned judgment and award and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. The point that arises for consideration is about the quantum of compensation. 13. There is no dispute about the fact that the claimant met with an accident and sustained injuries and that he was admitted to the Govt. Hospital and thereafter - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari and subsequently to the St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment. The claimant has examined the doctor as PW-3, who has issued the Disability Certificate, marked as Ex.P-12 and he has assessed the permanent physical disability of the claimant to the whole body at 90%. Whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 70% which is on the lower side. 14. Considering the evidence of PW-3, the doctor—an expert in the medical field, has opined that the claimant has suffered the disability to an extent of 90%. This court is of the considered view that the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the disability at 70%. Therefore, the permanent physical disability suffered by the claimant is re-assessed by this court at 80%. 15. The claimant, to prove his income has produced Ex.P- 13—salary certificate, but the income shown in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 said document depicts a sum of ₹5,750/-. The claimant has examined one Shakeel Pasha - a Civil and Mechanical Contractor as PW2, but in support of Ex.P-13, PW2 has not produced any records to show that PW-2 was paying ₹ 5,750/- per month as wages and ₹40/- per day towards food expenses etc. 16. In the absence of the proof of income, this Court has taken the notional income at ₹6,500/- as the accident occurred in 2012, by following the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 17. To the said income, 40% of the same needs to be added towards the future prospects, as per the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, thus the total income comes to ₹9,100/-. 18. The permanent disability has been reassessed by this court at 80%. The claimant was aged about 26 years as of the date of the accident as per the wound - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 certificate charge sheet etc., and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 17. 19. Thus, this Court on re-assessment of entire evidence on record, awards following compensation : Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation awarded in Rs. By the Tribunal By this Court 1 Pain and suffering 60,000/- 1,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses 70,000/- 70,000/- 3 Attendant charges 3,000/- 10,000/- 4 Nursing and nourishment charges 5,000/- 20,000/- 5 Loss of earning during treatment period 12,000/- 27,300/- (9,100/- x 3) 6 Loss of future earnings 7,56,000/- 14,85,120/- (Rs.9,100/- x 12 x ‘17’ x 80%) 7 Loss of amenities 50,000/- 50,000/- 8 Future treatment and replacement of artificial limb 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 9 Repair of motor cycle 15,000/- 15,000/- 10 Conveyance charges 7,100/- 15,000/- Total : 10,78,100/- 18,92,420/- Compensation enhanced by: 8,14,320/- 20. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of ₹18,92,420/-. Hence, the enhancement of compensation is ₹8,14,320/- 21. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9729 MFA No. 23323 of 2013 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. (iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of ₹18,92,420/- as against ₹10,78,100/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation is Rs. 8,14,320/- (iv) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹8,14,320/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. (v) The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12