- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5400 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. K. RANGAPPA, S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O JOSEPHNAGAR, 1ST CROSS, SAGAR TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 427. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. PRATHAP S/O RACHACHARI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O BELALAMAKKI, SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 427. 2. BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., P.B. NO.21, J.C. ROAD, SAGAR TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.461/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T 10, SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. By consent of both the parties, though the matter is listed for admission, the same is taken for final disposal. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.461/2013 dated 30.12.2016 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT-10, Sagar, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.30,898/-, the claimant is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 3. The factual matrix of the case is that: The petitioner is aged about 75 years. The petitioner while walking on J.C.Road of Sagar Town on 18.01.2013 at about 11.30 a.m., was hit by motorcycle driven by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The petitioner sustained fracture of right femur and he was immediately shifted to the Government hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore for treatment. He was inpatient for 15 days and therefore, he sought adequate compensation from respondent No.2. It was stated that the petitioner was a coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. 4. The petition was opposed by respondent No.2 contending that the compensation claimed is imaginary and untenable and that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license and as such, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1, the Doctor who - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8 and Exs.C1 to C7. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1, the official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW.2 and got marked the documents Exs.R1 to R8. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the both the parties held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner to the extent of 50% since he was found to be intoxicated with liquor and assessed the compensation at Rs.61,796/-, and awarded Rs.30,898/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in the appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the factum of the accident is not in dispute and the involvement of the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 insured by respondent No.2 is not in dispute. He contends that fastening 50% of the negligence on the petitioner is not justified since he was a pedestrian. He further contends that the Tribunal has not considered - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 the compensation under the head of loss of amenities and loss of income during the laid up period and the compensation under remaining heads. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 defends the impugned judgment regarding assessment of the compensation and the contributory negligence, but fairly submits that the compensation under the head of loss of amenities and loss of income during the laid up period has to be awarded. 9. A careful perusal of the records would reveal and which is not in dispute is that the petitioner was aged about 75 years at the time of the accident and he was walking by the side of the road. Even though the petitioner was intoxicated with liquor, it cannot be said that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. At the age of 75 years, when the petitioner was walking by the side of the road, the rider of the motor cycle would take appropriate caution while riding the motorcycle. The caution that was to be exercised by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 rider of the motorcycle should encompass that a pedestrian may come across the road and therefore, fastening of the liability of 50% on the petitioner appears to be incorrect. There cannot be any liability of the contributory negligence on the petitioner when the tart alleged is on the account of riding of the motor cycle by respondent No.1. Therefore, the conclusions of the Tribunal that there is contributory negligence on the part of the pedestrian cannot be accepted. 10. So far as the assessment of the compensation is concerned, the petitioner had sustained fracture of right femur and few minor injuries. He was inpatient for 15 days and he was got admitted to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. He was treated with surgery. PW.2 stated that there is a disability of 13.99% to the right thigh. The Tribunal taken 1/3rd of the same as the functional disability of the petitioner accepting the fact that the petitioner was working as a coolie. There is nothing else which has been placed on record. In that view of the matter, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 assessment of the disability by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. 11. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.1,000/- per month, which appears to be without any basis. The notional income should have been considered by the Tribunal. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for the purpose of settlement before the lok-adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,000/- p.m. for the year 2013. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. Hence, the loss of income due to the disability is calculated as Rs.8,000/- X 4.66% X 12 X 5 = Rs.22,368/- by adopting multiplier of ‘5’. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 12. As a consequence, considering the laid up period as two months, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.16,000/- under the head ‘loss of income during the laid up period’. 13. The petitioner has suffered fracture of femur and therefore, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,000/- under the head ‘conveyance, Special Diet and attendant charges’ and the same has to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- in view of the fact that he was inpatient for 15 days. 15. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities. Therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- has to be awarded under the head of ‘loss of amenities’. 16. Compensation under the head of medical expenses and future medical expenses awarded by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 Tribunal do not need any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total sum of Rs.1,00,470/- under the following heads: 1`Sl.No. Particulars Amount 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.35,000-00 2. Medical expenses Rs.13,000-00 3. Future medical expenses Rs.10,000-00 4. Conveyance, Specific Died and attendant charge Rs.15,000-00 5. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.16,000-00 6. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000-00 7. Loss of income during disability Rs.22,368-00 TOTAL 1,31,368/- 17. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.30,898/- to Rs.1,00,470/- (Rs.1,31,368/- - Rs.30,898/-) in addition to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30120 MFA No. 5400 of 2017 the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the disposal before the Tribunal. ii. The impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. iii. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within a period of 8 weeks. iv. All other aspects of the impugned award remain unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSB CT: BHK