- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL M.F.A. NO. 101792 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI VISHAL S/O. SADASHIV BIRADE, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. BACHI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI NAUSHAD AHMED SIDDIQUE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.F44 FO 5/405, BLD NO.8, SHUBHA GRAH, KHATIVALI VILLAGE, DIST: THANE-400604, STATE: MAHARASTRA. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 3RD FLOOR, AMAR EMPIRE,GIA VES CIRCLE, KHANAPUR ROAD, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2020 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT AT: BELAGAVI IN MVC NO.2113/2018 AND GRANT THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED BY THE APPELLANTS, HEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellant/injured challenging the judgment and award dated 03.01.2020 passed in MVC No.2113/2018 by the VI Additional District Judge and MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 29.12.2017 at about 7.00 a.m., the appellant was proceeding as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-10-BW-2741 along with his brother. While they were proceeding in front of United Auto, Islampur, his borther’s mobile fell on the road, so his brother parked the motorcycle by the side of that road and went back to pick up the mobile. The appellant was standing by the side of the road near that motorcycle. At that time, the driver of the Luxury private bus bearing Reg.No.MH-04-GP-9045 came in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner so - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 as to endanger human life, lost control and hit to the motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to which, the appellant/injured sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to Prakash Hospital, Islampur and thereafter to various hospitals. 3. Sri. Umesh C. Ainapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error by assessing the income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- per month which is required to be reassessed. Further, it is submitted that the injuries suffered by the appellant are fracture of tibia and fibula. Therefore, the assessment of disability at 10% by the Tribunal is contrary to the medical evidence on record. Hence, he seeks to reassess the same. It is also submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is also required to be enhanced appropriately by taking note of the evidence available on record by allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri. S.S.Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/insurance Company - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the injured was a student. Hence, his income cannot be assessed based on the claim made by the appellant. It is submitted that the PW2-Doctor was not a treated Doctor and without any basis, he has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant had sustained 40% disability to a particular limb. Hence, the assessment of disability by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record including trial Court records. The following point that would arise for our consideration in the present appeal is, whether the impugned judgment and award calls for any interference? 6. Answer to the above point would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 7. The pleading and evidence on record indicate that in a road accident dated 29.12.2017, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. In the said accident, he sustained fracture of Tibia and Fibula. He has been provided treatment in the various hospitals. Admittedly, PW2 is not a treated Doctor, however, based on the medical records, he has assessed the disability at 40% to a particular limb. However, considering the same, Tribunal assessed the disability at 10%. 8. In our view, taking note of the nature of treatment provided and disability certificate at Ex.P11, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if we re-assess the disability at 14% for the purpose of determination of compensation. Similarly, we re-assess the income of the injured notionally at Rs.10,250/- per month as against 7,500/- per month assessed by the Tribunal placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, the claimant would be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 entitled to compensation on the head of loss of future income due to disability is as under: Rs.10,250 x 12 x 18 x 14% = Rs.3,09,960/- 9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and does not call for interference. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following modified compensation: 1 Loss of future income due to disability Rs.3,09,960/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.68,112/- 3 Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- 4 Food and nourishment Rs.5,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs.3,000/- 6. Travelling expenses Rs.3,000/- 7. Loss of amenities in life Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.4,69,072/- 10. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,69,072/- as against Rs.3,21,112/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 ii. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,69,072/- as against Rs.3,21,112/- awarded by the Tribunal. iii. The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv. The insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v. Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. vi. Draw modified award accordingly. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10377-DB MFA No. 101792 of 2020 vii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55