- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101202 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI RAVI SHIDAPPA CHOUGALA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MORAB, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW RESIDING AT KANGRALI KH, BELAGAVI-590 020. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI VIJAY BHOPAL BIRAJ, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AMBABAI TEMPLE, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 038. (OWNER OF TATA ACE BEARING NO. KA-23/A-2925). 2. THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI, THROUGH ITS INTERMEDIARY NAME/LOCAL MANAGER, BELAGAVI-590 020. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-23/A-2925 POLICY VALID FROM 18-10-2011 TO 17-10-2012) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2016 MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 12:07:07 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2839/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.08.2016 passed in MVC No.2839/2012 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi1, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factum of accident and injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. The only disputed question is with regard to questioning the liability fastened on Insurance Company/respondent No.2. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 4. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 5. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: “Cut lacerated wound over right frontal parietal region, posterior aspect right elbow, knee cut lacerated wound, occipital region, multiple injuries on shoulder joint, subacute extrac dural heamotoma right frontal linear fracture of lateral wall of sphenoid, greater wind of sphenoid and lamina papyracea on right side, bleed in sphenoid and ethmoid air cells and other injuries all over the body.” 6. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and sufferings and loss of future amenities and expectations of life. 50,000/- 2. Towards diet, conveyance and attendance charges. 10,000/- 3. Towards medical expenses. 41,860/- Total: 1,01,860/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company submitted that the Doctor who has assessed disability is not competent Doctor as he has not treated the claimant and moreover he is only psychiatrist, he is not competent to issue disability certificate and assess disability. 8. But considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, he has sustained grievous injuries to the head leading to concussion injury, besides other grievous injuries. Though, the Doctor has not treated the claimant, but he is a qualified medical practitioner. He is not only a psychiatrist but Neuro psychologist. Therefore, he is competent to assess disability and accordingly, issued disability certificate. Where injury to the head is caused and such injury is not a superficial injury but proving to a deep injury. Then, such injury certainly causes some impairs in mental balance, that is what the Doctor assessed. Therefore, the Tribunal is not correct in not awarding compensation under the head future loss of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 income. Therefore, considering nature of injuries sustained and disability assessed by the Doctor and by following the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another2 (RajKumar Case), it is just and proper to take 10% of functional disability affecting the earning capacity of the claimant. Accordingly, it is taken. 9. The Tribunal while awarding compensation has awarded compensation under the heads pain and sufferings and loss of future amenities and expectations of life; diet, conveyance and attendance charges and towards medical expenses, but not awarded compensation towards loss of future income due to disability. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation under other heads also such as loss of amenities, loss of income during treatment period and loss of future income due to disability. Hence, considering the nature of injuries as above discussed and the Doctor though has not treated 2 2011 (1) SCC 343 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 the claimant, but has assessed disability at 35% to 40% that is found to be on higher side. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained and considering the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJKUMAR (Supra), it is just and proper to take 10% as functional disability, which affects the earning capacity of the claimant. 10. The accident is caused in the year 2011. Therefore, notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month is taken into consideration, which is recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Therefore appropriate applicable multiplier is 16. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is hereby reassessed and quantified as Rs.1,15,200/- (Rs.6,000/- x 10% x 16 x 12) 11. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the heads loss of amenities and loss of income during laid up period. Therefore, a compensation of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 Rs.20,000/-, Rs.6,000/- awarded under these heads respectively. 12. So far as quantum of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. But this Court while awarding compensation consistently held that the rate of interest at 6% p.a. Hence, the rate of interest is scaled down to 6% p.a. Accordingly, it is taken into consideration. 13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards injuries, pain and suffering. 50,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses. 41,860/- 3. Towards loss of amenities. 20,000/- 4. Towards loss of income during laid up period and medical treatment period. 6,000/- 5. Towards incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, conveyance, etc.,. 10,000/- 6. Towards loss of future earning capacity. 1,15,200/- Total: 2,43,060/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 14. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,43,060/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.1,01,860/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 26.08.2016 passed in MVC No.2839/2012 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, stands modified. iii. The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,43,060/- as against Rs.1,01,860/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8950 MFA No. 101202 of 2017 iv. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 117 days in filing the appeal. v. The Insurance Company/respondent No.2 shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi. No order as to costs. vii. Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA, RKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37