- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15091 MFA No. 103228 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103228 OF 2016 (MV-) BETWEEN: MANJANAGOUDA S/O. MALLANAGOUDA KENCHALLER, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SATTAGIHALL VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SURESH P. HUDEDAGADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUDEVA PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, OPP. LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15091 MFA No. 103228 of 2016 2. K.P. THOREYAPPA S/O. K. PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: KAKKARAGOLLA, TQ & DIST: DAVANAGERE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.07.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HIREKERUR IN M.V.C. NO.20/2012 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL (MFA) AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY AWARDING THE AMOUNT AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15091 MFA No. 103228 of 2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri.Mallikarjun who appears before this Court physically and represents Sri.S.P.Hudedagaddi, learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri.Ravindra R.Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.1 who appears through video conference. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hirekerur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.20/2012 dated 21.07.2016. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. As against the claim for Rs.15,00,000/- in total, the Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.3,06,136/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15091 MFA No. 103228 of 2016 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant as an agriculturist and owner of 33 acres 13 guntas of land was earning Rs.7,00,000/- per annum. However, the Tribunal took the income of the appellant as Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Learned counsel states that though PW-2 spoke that the disability in respect of whole body is 50%, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 10%. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation granted towards pain and suffering and towards loss of amenities and unhappiness are on lower side. Learned counsel also states that no compensation is granted towards the incidental expenditure incurred. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the notional income that has to be taken for the relevant period is only Rs.6,000/- per month but the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel states that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15091 MFA No. 103228 of 2016 assessment of the Tribunal in respect of disability is proper and thus there are no grounds for further enhancement in compensation. 6. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained segmental fracture and dislocation of both bones that is tibia and fibula of right leg which is grievous in nature and further sustained one simple injury. The appellant also succeeded in establishing that he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 6 days. The Tribunal subjecting the evidence of PW-2 to scrutiny has come to a conclusion that the disability in respect of whole body can be taken as 10% which needs no interference. As rightly contented by learned counsel for respondent No.1, the appellant failed to establish his actual earnings as on the date of accident. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings given by the Tribunal that the notional income is required to be taken as Rs.1,20,000 per annum. However, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15091 MFA No. 103228 of 2016 amount awarded as compensation towards pain and suffering and towards loss of amenities in life is on lower side. Also, the Tribunal failed to award justifiable compensation towards the sum which the appellant would have incurred for his food, extra nourishment, transportation and attendant charges. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced by Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is the 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 Tribunal, Hirekerur through orders in M.V.C. No.20/2012 dated 21.07.2016 is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15091 MFA No. 103228 of 2016 (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 No.1 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.: 59