- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14907 MFA No. 100483 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100483 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI JAGADISH GADIGEPPA KALWAD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, NOW NIL, R/O: RAMAPUR SITE, SAUNDATTI, TALUKA SAUNDATTI, DISTRICT BELGAUM, …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.B. NESARGI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.W.K.R.T.C. GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C., BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (BY M/S PRIYANKA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28TH OCTOBER 2013 IN M.V.NO.475/2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM IN AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,56,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. MAY PLEASE BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO RS.4,71,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION, TILL REALIZATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14907 MFA No. 100483 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri A.B. Nasargi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Priyanka who represents Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur learned counsel on record for respondent. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Belgaum, in MVC 475 of 2012 dated 28.10.2013. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. Making the submission on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained fracture of backbone which is a vital part of the body. During the course of treatment two rods were inserted into the spine and were fixed with screws. The appellant was working as lecturer as on the date of accident and due to the injuries sustained, he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 28 days and thereafter was under bed rest for a considerable period. But without considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, the tribunal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14907 MFA No. 100483 of 2014 awarded compensation which is grossly low. Learned counsel also submits that as per the evidence of PW2, the disability in respect of whole body is 30%. But the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 10% unjustifiably. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 4. On the other hand, the submission that is made by learned counsel for the respondent is that the appellant failed to examine the doctor who treated him. Learned counsel states that the tribunal rightly took the disability in respect of whole body as 10% and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained wedge compression of D12 vertebra coupled with fracture. It is also not in dispute that the appellant underwent a surgery and during the course of surgery, the spine was fixed with rods and screws. Taking into consideration the totality of evidence produced, the tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 10%. PW2 failed to state in specific terms - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14907 MFA No. 100483 of 2014 the disability in respect of the affected limbs and its impact on the whole body. Therefore this Court is of the view that the finding of the tribunal regarding disability to be taken in reference to whole body needs no interference. However, having considered the fact that the appellant sustained an injury to the spine and underwent extensive treatment and is left with disability of 10% in respect of whole body, this Court is of the view that the compensation granted towards ‘loss of amenities in life’ i.e., Rs.10,000/- grossly low. 6. It is not in dispute that, the appellant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 28 days. Having considered the nature of injury sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant could have taken bed rest at least for a period of 6 months. However, the tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- only towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Amount thus granted is therefore on lower side. Further the tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards the expenditure which the appellant would have incurred for ‘food, extra-nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges’. Also no sum is awarded as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14907 MFA No. 100483 of 2014 compensation towards ‘medical expenditure’. Hence taking into consideration these facts, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the tribunal is required to be enhanced by Rs.80,000/-. 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, Belgaum, through orders in MVC 475 of 2012 dated 28.10.2013 is enhanced by Rs.80,000/-. (iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. (iv) Respondent is directed to deposit enhanced sum within a period of 8 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 EM CT-MCK: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65