- 1 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8298 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT BELTHAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA MANIYANI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT MITHOOR HOUSE KUNTAR, ADHUR VILLAGE KASARGOD, KERALA PIN-671543. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SHIVARAM S/O LATE NARAYANA MANIYANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2ND FLOOR CHURCH BUILDING, OPP: KARNATAKA BANK, KODIALBAIL MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT PIN-575003. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., TIGER HILLS MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD KASARGOD KERALA REPRESENTED BY - 2 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER PIN-671121. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.KISHORE KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. Y.ARUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY/SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01-08-2015 IN MVC NO.39/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T. MANGALORE AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the Appellant/Claimant challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2015 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangalore (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.39/2014. - 3 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are as under: 2. On 14.09.2013, when the claimant was traveling on Jeep bearing Registration No.KL-14-7722 from Minchipadavu towards Mithoor being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, said jeep has turned turtle and fell down in the ditch. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that she spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 4. Upon service of notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. On the - 4 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., and directed the Respondents No.1 and 2 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the claimant asserts that she was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by working as agriculturist/housewife. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.4,000/- per month. Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor evidence as P.W.7. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant’s disability as 5%, contradicting the evidence of - 5 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 the doctor that the claimant permanent physical disability of 10%. Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. She was treated as impatient for a period of 2 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, she was not in a position to discharge the regular work. She has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions: Firstly, the assertion of claimant that she was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, remains unsubstantiated due to lack of documentary evidence. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally. - 6 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 Secondly, the Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed disability at 5%. Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference. Lastly, in the light of the Sarala Varma’s case ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 5 % p.a. on the compensation amount appears excessive. With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. - 7 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 8. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as under: Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) 1 Pain and agony Rs.30,000-00 2 Medical expenses Rs.10,000-00 3 Loss of future earning on the basis of disability Rs.12,000-00 4 Loss of earning during laid up period Rs.16,000-00 5 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000-00 6 Conveyance nourishment and attendant charges Rs.10,000-00 Total Rs.80,000-00 9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 14-9-2913 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 10. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. But she has not produced any documents to substantiate her claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accident of - 8 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 the year 2013, notional income shall be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. 11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained the following injuries: (i) Reddish contusion of 5 cm x 4 cm on the left side of top of forehead (ii) Reddish contusion of 5 cm x 3 cm on the back of left side of neck (iii) Swelling and deformity of right wrist with underlying fracture of lower end of radius and ulna 12. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 5%. The claimant is age 65 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘7’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,600/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 7 x 5%) on account of ‘loss of future income.’ 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering as the claimant had sustained contusion of forehead and deformity of wrist. It is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The compensation of - 9 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 Rs.10,000/- under the head medical expenses is also as per the bills produced and the same is retained. Further, compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of ‘food, conveyance and attendant charges’ is reasonable and retained. The claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 2 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. A sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head ‘Loss of amenities’ is on the lower side. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation. Sl. No. Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Court (Rs.) 1 Pain and agony Rs.40,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.10,000/- 3 Loss of future Income (Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 7 x 5%) Rs.33,600/- 4 Loss of earning during laid up period Rs.16,000/- 5 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- 6 Food, conveyance and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.1,34,600/- - 10 - MFA No. 8298 of 2016 The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,34,600/- 15. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of *Rs.1,34,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization to be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv *CORRECTED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED 12.01.2026.