- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15505 MFA No. 23599 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23599 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRIKANTH S/O. KRISHNAPPA SOKANADAGI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DADANATTI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA MELAPPANAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANASAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH JAMAKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26/07/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL IX, MUDHOL IN M.V.C.NO.330/2011, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15505 MFA No. 23599 of 2013 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL 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) Heard Sri Pavan B. Doddatti, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri R.S.Arani learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Mudhol through orders in MVC 330 of 2011 dated 26.07.2013, the claimant therein preferred the present appeal. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained multiple injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2011. As a driver by profession and also by doing agriculture, the appellant was earning huge sum as on the date of accident. Though the appellant produced Ex.P40 to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15505 MFA No. 23599 of 2013 establish his occupation of landed property, the tribunal without considering the earnings of the appellant took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.4,500/- per month and awarded very meager sum as compensation both under the heads ‘loss of future earnings’ and ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Learned counsel further states that the compensation that is granted by the tribunal under all other heads is also on lower side. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellant failed to establish in clear terms his earnings as on the date of accident. Therefore the tribunal rightly took the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month. Learned counsel states that the compensation that is granted by the tribunal therefore is justifiable. 5. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant states that the accident occurred in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15505 MFA No. 23599 of 2013 year 2011 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month and at least said figure should have been considered by the tribunal. 6. Having considered the submission that is made by both the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained two grievous injuries i.e. fracture of neck of femur right and fracture shaft of right femur which are grievous in nature apart from one other simple injury. Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 31 days. Having considered the totality of evidence produced, the tribunal rightly took the disability in respect of whole body as 10%. Also the tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier ‘17’. Thus without disturbing those parameters i.e., the disability in respect of whole - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15505 MFA No. 23599 of 2013 body as 10% and the appropriate multiplier to be applied as ‘17’, having taken the national income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.1,22,400/- (Rs.6,000x12x17x10%). 8. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained, the fact that the appellant underwent a surgery and took treatment as inpatient for 31 days, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 4 months. Thus, loss of earning during laid up period comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.6,000x4). Also, this Court is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the tribunal under all other heads except ‘medical expenditure’ requires marginal enhancement. The total compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive thus is as under: Heads Amount in Rs. Towards pain and suffering 35,000.00 Towards food, extra-nourishment attendant and conveyance 15,000.00 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15505 MFA No. 23599 of 2013 charges Loss of future earnings 1,22,400.00 Loss of income during laid up period 24,000.00 Medical expenses 80,400.00 Loss of amenities in life 20,000.00 Total 2,96,800.00 9. Therefore it is clear that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,96,800/- as compensation. Thus 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-IX, Mudhol through orders in MVC 330 of 2011 dated 26.07.2013 is enhanced from Ra.2,05,000/- to Rs.2,96,800/-. (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 No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15505 MFA No. 23599 of 2013 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.: 11