- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15454 MFA No. 101957 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101957 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: GURAYYA S/O. THIRTHAYYA JALAGERIMATH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O. LAXMINAGAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT-587101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHARANABASAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA GANIGER, AGE: 49 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF THE TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO.KA 36/M-8824 R/O. NEAR POLICE STATION, TURVIHAL, TQ: SHINDHNOOR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15454 MFA No. 101957 of 2017 MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL ON RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-III, BAGALKOT DATED 24.09.2016 IN M.V.C.NO.440/2013 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FASTENING THE LIABILITY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT BEING FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15454 MFA No. 101957 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Shivanand who represents Sri.Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri.N.R.Kuppellur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.440/2013 dated 24.09.2016. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Only ground on which the appeal is filed as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of the income that has to be considered for awarding proper compensation and failure on part of the Tribunal to grant compensation under conventional heads. Arguing on the income that has to be considered, learned counsel for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15454 MFA No. 101957 of 2017 appellant states that the appellant as an Ayurvedic private practitioner was earning huge sum as on the date of accident. But the Tribunal took the income of the appellant as Rs.12,000/- per month. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the appellant himself in his pleadings mentioned that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and the same is considered by the Tribunal. Record discloses justification in the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. At para 3 of the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that the appellant pleaded that as a Doctor by profession, he used to visit villages around Bagalkot city and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in considering the income of the appellant as Rs.12,000/- per month as on the date of accident. 4. Coming to compensation that is to be granted under other heads, apart from granting a sum of Rs.2,30,400/- towards loss of future earnings, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15454 MFA No. 101957 of 2017 and Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of right fibula and took treatment for the said injury. Having considered the nature of injury sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,000 only under the said head. Thus, enhancement will be Rs.15,000/- (Rs.20,000 – Rs.5,000). The Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards the expenditure which the appellant would have incurred for food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges during the period of treatment. This Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Also, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards loss of earnings during laid up period. Having considered the nature of injury sustained that is fracture to right fibula, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15454 MFA No. 101957 of 2017 bed rest at least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.12,000 x 3). 5. Thus, the total sum which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.61,000/- (15,000 + 10,000 + 36,000). Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Bagalkot through orders in M.V.C. No.440/2013 dated 24.09.2016 is enhanced by Rs.61,000/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15454 MFA No. 101957 of 2017 (iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (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.: 30