- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102911 OF 2025 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. BASAMMA W/O. KUPADALAPPA @ KOPPANA MUGGAJOL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE WORK (NOW NIL), R/O: HANSANUR VILLAGE, TQ: GULEDAGUDDA, DIST: BAGALKOT-587203. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANGAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE CAR NO.KA-25/MA-8886, R/O: KARAKALAKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT-587203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO KINDLY BE ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, J.M.F.C. AND M.A.C.T-VIII, BADAMI DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.360/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.C. No.360/2022, pursuant to the judgment and award dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, JMFC and MACT-VIII, Badami (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), seeking compensation of Rs.33,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.11.2020. 3. According to the averments in the claim petition, on 09.11.2020, the claimant-appellant was proceeding for coolie work to the land of one Rayavva - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 Pujari, near Hansanur-Teggi main road. At the time when she was about to sit on the motorcycle belonging to the son of Rayavva Pujari, the driver of a car bearing registration No.KA-25/MA-888, owned by respondent No.1, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. She was admitted to the hospital for a period of 15 days and is stated to have incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, and further requires Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical treatment. It is further pleaded that the claimant was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a coolie. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance through their respective counsel. Respondent No.1 did not file any objections. Respondent No.2 filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, but admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 25/MA-888 was insured under a valid insurance policy. In - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 support of her case, the claimant examined herself as PW.1 and produced 13 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P13. Respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral evidence but produced one document, which was marked as Exhibit R1. 5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and that respondent No.2–Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Taking the age of the claimant as 32 years, the Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income at Rs.13,750/- and awarded 40% towards future prospects. Based on the medical evidence, while the certified disability was assessed at 75%, the Tribunal considered 25% as the functional permanent disability for the purpose of computing compensation. The Tribunal further awarded compensation under other conventional heads. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 6. Sri B.S. Sangati, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, submits that the claimant suffered amputation of her right lower limb and is consequently unable to carry out her daily activities. He contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability at only 25%, which is on the lower side. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in adopting only 1/3rd of the assessed disability for the purpose of computing compensation. Having regard to the nature of disability and the claimant’s occupation, it is submitted that the functional disability ought to have been assessed at 100%. Learned counsel also submits that the claimant was inpatient for a period of 17 days and underwent surgery for amputation; hence, the compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment and nutrition, food and conveyance, and attendant charges is inadequate. 7. Sri S.S. Koliwad, learned counsel for respondent No.2–Insurer, submits that the Tribunal has rightly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 assessed the permanent disability at 25%. He contends that it is a well-settled principle of law that 1/3rd of whole- body disability is to be considered in respect of disability to a particular limb. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in taking the disability at 25%. Learned counsel further submits that, having regard to the evidence on record and the nature of treatment undergone by the claimant, the compensation awarded under the other heads is just and proper. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 9. The occurrence of the accident on 09.11.2020 and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident are not in dispute. The insurer has not disputed its liability to pay compensation. Therefore, the only question that falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the claimant is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 that the assessment of disability by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is the specific plea of the claimant that she was engaged in coolie work. 9.1 As recorded by the Tribunal, the claimant has suffered amputation of her right lower limb and is unable to carry out her daily living activities. The medical evidence on record assessed the whole-body disability at 75%. The Tribunal, however, considered 1/3rd of the whole-body disability as the disability to the particular limb. It is a well-settled legal position, reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that physical disability alone cannot form the basis for assessing compensation. Rather, it is the functional disability that must be considered by the Court while determining just compensation. Although functional disability cannot be applied as a thumb rule in all cases, its assessment must depend on the nature of the injured person's avocation. There may be instances where, despite significant physical disability, the earning capacity of the injured remains unaffected. Conversely, even a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 minor physical disability may, in certain cases, substantially impair the earning capacity or performance of the occupation previously carried out by the injured. Therefore, the assessment of functional disability must be undertaken on a case-to-case basis. 9.2 In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Vibhor Fialok and Another, in Civil Appeal Nos. 1337–1338 of 2019, dated 18.02.2025. The relevant paragraph is extracted herein below: “……If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body i.e. the permanent disability suffered by the person will have to be assessed/re-considered for the purposes of computation of compensation towards loss of future income.” 9.3 For the purpose of functional disability assessment in the present case, the nature of the avocation of the injured claimant assumes significant - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 relevance. As pleaded, the claimant was engaged in coolie work and has suffered amputation of her right lower limb. It would be virtually impossible for her to continue such manual labour with the use of only one leg. She is unable to move or walk without the aid of crutches or the assistance of a prosthetic limb. Even if an artificial limb is fitted, it may only partially restore mobility and would not enable her to resume her pre-accident occupation in its original form. 9.4. Having regard to the nature of the claimant’s avocation and the extent of amputation she has suffered, and upon applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, this Court is of the considered view that the functional disability can be fairly assessed at 75%. In view of the fact that compensation has already been awarded towards the fixation of an artificial limb, the contention of the claimant to adopt 100% disability is liable to be rejected. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 10. It is a settled position of law that even in cases of injury, the claimant is entitled to compensation towards loss of future prospects. In the present case, as the functional disability has been assessed at 75%, the claimant would be entitled to future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which needs no reiteration. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under this head. Loss of earning capacity is Rs. 13,750 x 40 / 100 x 16 x 75 / 100 = Rs.27,36,000/-. Considering the period of inpatient treatment, the nature of injuries sustained, the surgeries undergone, and the pain and suffering endured by the claimant during the course of treatment, this Court is inclined to modify the compensation awarded under the relevant heads. 11. It is further noted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the cost of fixation of an artificial limb. In similar cases, this Court has consistently awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head. Although the claimant has not produced any - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 evidence regarding the actual cost of fixation of the artificial limb, the absence of such material would not preclude this Court from awarding a reasonable and just amount, based on judicial precedents. Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of fixation of an artificial limb. 12. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Enhanced compensation (in Rs.) 1. Loss of Earning Capacity due to disability 13,750x40/100x16x75/100 9,12,000/- 27,36,000/- 2. Medical expenses 1,78,000/- 1,78,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 1,00,000/- 4. Loss of amenities and happiness in life 10,000/- 1,00,000/- 5. Extra nourishment and nutrition 10,000/- 10,000/- 6. Food, conveyance and attendants charges during treatment 25,000/- 25,000/- 7. Laid up period -- 41,250/- 8. Artificial limb -- 1,00,000/- Total 11,85,000 32,90,250/- Enhanced compensation 21,05,250/- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 13. Accordingly, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which was Rs.11,85,000/- is hereby modified to Rs.32,90,250/- and appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.21,05,250/-. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award in MVC.No.360/2022 dated 02.05.2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, JMFC and MACT-VIII, Badami, is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.32,90,250/- as against Rs.11,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The enhanced compensation of Rs.21,05,250/-(Rupees twenty one lakh five thousand two hundred and fifty only) shall be paid with interest at 6% p.a. by the respondent-Insurance company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9000-DB MFA No. 102911 of 2025 (v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant- claimant as per the judgment and award of the Tribunal. (vi) The order of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19