- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103617 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI CHANDRAPPA S/O. APPAYYAPPA BANIKATTI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & CHAPPAL MAKER (NOW NIL), R/O: HIREBAGEWADI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591109. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRANAV S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PARTNER M/S V.I. SHETTY & COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY SATISH V. SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 29/1, CHAMUNDI HEIGHTS JAYANAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021, (OWNER OF TIPPER BEARING REGD. NO.KA-25/D-7125) 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., IIIRD FLOOR, SUDEV PLAZA, OPP. SHREE LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBAN PETH, HUBBALLI-580029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DATTATRAYA J. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.03.2016 IN MVC NO.1700/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,35,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO RS.15,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT, BY HOLDING RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 HEREIN JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) 1. Heard Sri.Pranav, who represents Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri. M. Y. Katagi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Though Sri.Dattatraya J. Naik is on record representing respondent No.1, learned counsel failed to make his appearance. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 2. Aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, through orders in MVC No.1700/2014 dated 01.03.2016, the claimant therein preferred the present appeal. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injury to the right lower limb apart from several other simple injuries. The appellant, as a cobbler, was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and as an agriculturalist was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. However, the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month which is improper. Learned counsel further submits that, though PW2 deposed that the disability is 45%, Tribunal took the disability as 15% erroneously. Further, the compensation granted under all heads is on lower side and no amount is awarded towards loss of earnings during laid-up period and hence the compensation granted by the Tribunal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 requires enhancement. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant could not produce all the medical bills before the Tribunal, but when the matter was referred to Lok Adalat by this Court, the appellant produced those bills. Those bills, which were produced in original, were subjected to scrutiny by respondent No.2 and found those bills to be genuine and therefore, the sum laid down in those bills is required to be awarded. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the appellant failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. Considering the said fact, Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month. However, for the relevant period, that is in the year 2014 in which the accident occurred, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income as Rs.7,500/- per month and therefore respondent No.2 has no objection to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 consider the notional income of the appellant as Rs.7,500/- per month, but not more than that. 5. So far as the medical expenditure is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- under the said head. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, concurring with the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant states that, as per the medical bills produced by the appellant, the additional medical expenditure incurred is Rs.29,330/- and the said amount may be granted. 6. The appellant failed to produce any substantive proof in respect of his earnings as on the date of accident. Therefore, basing on the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court is of the view that the notional income is required to be taken as Rs.7,500/- per month. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellant states that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal is wrong, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 however, having considered the reasoning of the Tribunal and as the evidence of PW2 is that the disability of 45% is in respect of one of the lower limbs only, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in taking the disability in respect of whole body as 15%. Also, the Tribunal has applied correctly the multiplier 13. Therefore, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ is Rs.1,75,500/- (Rs.7,500 × 12 × 13 × 15%). The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,63,800/- only under this head. Therefore, the enhancement will be Rs.11,700/- (Rs.1,75,500 – Rs. 1,63,800). 8. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, that is comminuted fracture of right tibia and fibula at middle and upper 1/3rd, comminuted fracture of right femur and soft tissue injury to face and left foot, this Court is of the view that the appellant could have taken bed rest at least for a period of 4 months. Thus, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 ‘loss of earnings during laid-up period’ comes to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.7,500 × 4). 9. Therefore, the total sum which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.71,030/- (Rs.11,700 + Rs.29,330 + Rs. 30,000). 10. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following order: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. Compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, through orders in MVC No.1700/2014 dated 01.03.2016 is enhanced by Rs.71,030/-. iii. Enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15179 MFA No. 103617 of 2016 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, appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25