- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15645 MFA No. 104039 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104039 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: UMESH S/O. PAKKIRAPPA, 29 YEARS, CLEANER CUM AGRICULTURE, NOW R/O: 5TH WARD, GUGGARAHATTI, BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJESH SANKADAL S/O. THIPPANNA 36 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-25/B-8378, R/O: DAMBAL VILLAGE, MUNDARAGI TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT. 2. PRAKASH B. KALAL, S/O. BABU RAO KALAL, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15645 MFA No. 104039 of 2016 44 YEARS, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG.NO. KA-25/B-8378, R/O: PADDYANHAAKKAL, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI. 3. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.40, 1ST FLOOR, SLV TOWER, PARVATHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 & R2-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS IN M.V.C. NO.312/2014 DATED 19.01.2016 ON FILE OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.2,00,800/- RS.10,25,000/- M.V.C.NO.312/2014 DATED 19.01.2016 ON FILE OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II AT BALLARI, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15645 MFA No. 104039 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Sri Manunatha G. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Nagaraj C. Kolloori learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-II, Ballari through orders in MVC 312/2014 dated 19.01.2016, the claimant therein came before this Court seeking enhancement. 3. Contending that the appellant sustained three grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant who was aged around 27 years by the date of accident, as an agriculturist and as a cleaner was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. However, the tribunal took the notional income as Rs.5,000/- per month which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in the year 2013 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15645 MFA No. 104039 of 2016 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad is taking the notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month and at least said figure should have been considered by the tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that the disability assessed by the tribunal is also improper. Also contending that the compensation granted under all heads is grossly low, learned counsel seeks for enhancement in compensation. 4. Submitting that the compensation that is granted by the tribunal is justifiable, learned counsel for respondent No.3 states that considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant, there may be marginal enhancement. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of 4th and 5th metatarsal bones left and fracture of frontal bone, which are all grievous in nature. Having considered the discussion of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15645 MFA No. 104039 of 2016 the tribunal, this Court is of the view that the disability as assessed by it requires no interference. 6. The appellant failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident. However, considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Thus taking the notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month and without disturbing the other parameters i.e., application of appropriate multiplier ‘17’ and the disability in respect of whole body as 10%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards ‘loss of future earnings’ comes to Rs.1,42,800/- (Rs.7,000x12x17x10%). The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- only under said head. Thus the enhancement will be Rs.40,800/- (Rs.1,42,800/- minus Rs.1,02,000/-). - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15645 MFA No. 104039 of 2016 7. Also considering the nature of injuries sustained i.e., three grievous injuries, this Court is of the view that the appellant could not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of 5 months. Thus ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’ comes to Rs.35,000/- (Rs.7,000 x 5). But the tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- only towards ‘loss of earnings during laid up period’. Therefore enhancement will be Rs.30,000/- (Rs.35,000 minus Rs.5,000/-). The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- only towards ‘loss of amenities in life’. However having considered the nature of injuries sustained, the treatment taken and the disability with which the appellant is left with, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities in life’. Thus the total compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the tribunal is Rs.80,800/-(Rs.40,800/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/-). Therefore the appeal is disposed of with the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15645 MFA No. 104039 of 2016 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari through orders in MVC 312 of 2014 dated 19.01.2016 is enhanced by Rs.80,800/-. (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.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks 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.: 26