- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 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.100592 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI SIDDHARAMESHWARA SWAMIJI HIREMATH S/O. SIDDHARAMESWAMY, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: RELIGIOUS PREACHING AND MATHADIPATHI OF SHRI SIDDHARAMESHWAR SAMSHAN HIREMATH ALSO AGRICULTURE, R/O: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PADMAJA S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABEDA S/O. ISHAD, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.GJ-18/X-8657, R/O: GOURA POST, JATATASEEL, TARGAD ROAD, MATUR-281 001, UTTAR PRADESH. 2. M/S. KATARIA TRANSPORT COMPANY (GUJARAT) PVT. LTD., OPP. MILAN SHOPPING CENTER, N.H. NO.8, AT: CHHATRAL, TQ: KALOL, DIST: GANDHINAGAR-382010, GUJARAT, (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.GJ-18/X-8657) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, HOTEL PRIYADARSHINI COMPOUND, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, HOSAPETE-583201, DIST: BALLARI. 4. SHARANAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA GASATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF CAR NO.KA-01/MC-2886, R/O: YELBURGA-583 236, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. 5. VAGEESH PANDIT S/O. SIDDARAMSWAMY HIREMATH, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O: YELBURGA-583 236, DIST: KOPPAL. 6. MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, YELBURGA, DATED 26.11.2016 IN MVC NO.40/2012, AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION SUITABLY THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.06.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.3, Sri B.G. Indi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, and Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner- appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.11.2016 passed in M.V.C. No.40/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yelburga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 traffic accident that occurred on 19.11.2010, involving a car bearing registration No.KA-01/MC-2886 and a lorry bearing registration No.GJ-18/X-8657. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. As per the averments in the claim petition, the petitioner is the owner of 100 acres of agricultural land, running educational institutions, and was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. 4. Upon service of notice, respondent No.3-the Insurance Company filed its statement of objections, denying the averments made in the claim petition. The involvement of the insured vehicle, the liability of the insurer, and the possession of a valid and effective driving licence by the driver were specifically disputed. The respondent also denied the claimant’s asserted monthly income, the expenditure allegedly incurred, as well as the nature and extent of the disability claimed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 5. Respondent No.6, while denying the averments made in the claim petition, specifically disputed the insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/MC-2886. The injuries sustained by the claimant, the medical expenses incurred, and the extent of disability were also denied. Additionally, the respondent questioned whether the driver held a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Respondent No.5, while partially admitting the claim averments, disputed the quantum of compensation claimed. While admitting the ownership of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/MC-2886, it was contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.6, and therefore, any liability arising out of the accident ought to be fastened on the insurer. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry involved in the incident. 6. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and one more witness as PW.2, and produced 198 documents, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P198. The respondents examined 2 witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2, and produced 5 documents, which were marked as Exhibits R1 to R5. 7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.9,48,967/-. While computing the compensation, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 45% and, for the purpose of calculation, considered 1/3rd of the said disability. The claimant’s monthly income was taken at Rs.20,000/-. The tribunal awarded compensation under various other heads. 8. Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri, learned counsel for Sri S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that prior to the accident, the petitioner was serving as the Mathadheesha of a Math. Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, though the petitioner is able to manage the administrative affairs of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 the Math, he is unable to personally supervise the agricultural land. Consequently, he has been compelled to engage others for supervision, thereby incurring additional expenditure. It is contended that, since the petitioner's income is ascertainable, adoption of notional income by the Tribunal was not justified. It is further submitted that the petitioner was earning Rs.50,000/- per month, and that even this income has been adversely affected due to the injuries. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner has suffered mental disability as a consequence of the accidental injuries. It is submitted that disability is to be assessed at 100%. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent–insurer submits that the petitioner was only the Mathadhipathi of the Math, and that all the properties, including the agricultural land, belonged to the Math. It is contended that the Math was not paying any remuneration to the petitioner; hence, there is no actual loss of income. It is further submitted that the petitioner has continued to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 function as Mathadhipathi, and the injuries sustained in the accident have not deprived him of or obstructed him from discharging his duties in that capacity. The contention that the petitioner has suffered mental disability and is unable to function as Mathadhipathi is also denied, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner himself deposed before the Tribunal. 10. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 11. The occurrence of the accident on 19.11.2010 involving the car bearing registration No.KA-01/MC-2886 and the lorry bearing registration No.GJ-18/X-8657 is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident is also undisputed. The Tribunal has held respondent Nos.3 and 6-the Insurance Companies liable for payment of compensation. As the Insurance Companies have not preferred any appeal challenging the finding on liability, no further discussion on that aspect is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 warranted. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner and the quantum of compensation to be awarded. 12. The petitioner has claimed that he owns approximately 100 acres of agricultural land and earns Rs.50,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim of ownership of 100 acres of land or the income of Rs.50,000/- per month. It is a settled position in law that, in the absence of proof of income, notional income is to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the Tribunal, assessed the monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. As the insurer has not challenged the said finding in appeal, the monthly income as assessed by the Tribunal is accepted. 13. The petitioner is seeking to have the disability assessed at 100%. It is submitted that the head injuries sustained have resulted in an Organic Mental Disorder secondary to Traumatic Brain Injury, which is stated to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 permanent in nature. The Tribunal's assessment of whole body disability at 45% is challenged as being without any proper basis. However, the evidence on record is not sufficient to accept the petitioner’s claim regarding the extent of disability. It is a settled position of law that whole body disability alone cannot form the basis for awarding compensation. In appropriate cases, functional disability is to be considered, which may vary from the whole body disability depending on the nature of the claimant’s occupation. The assessment of functional disability is subjective and depends upon the facts of each case, the nature of work performed by the claimant, and the extent to which the injuries have impaired the claimant’s ability to carry out such work. In some instances, the functional disability may exceed the assessed whole body disability, and in other cases, it may be less. 14. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be the Mathadhipathi of a Math, entrusted with its - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 administration and the supervision of its lands. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has continued to function as the Mathadhipathi even after the accident. While it is the petitioner’s case that the injuries have caused some hindrance in performing his duties to the same extent as prior to the accident, no cogent evidence has been placed on record to establish ownership of 100 acres of agricultural land. Even assuming such ownership, there is no evidence to demonstrate any actual loss suffered from agricultural activities as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. 15. The claim of 100% disability cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner himself entered the witness box and deposed as PW.1 before the Tribunal. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has continued to discharge his duties as the Mathadhipathi. If the petitioner had indeed suffered the extent of disability as claimed, the situation would have been otherwise. Thirdly, there is no evidence on record to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 demonstrate how the alleged disability has affected the petitioner’s earning capacity. A mere reduction in the quality or quantity of services rendered to the Math cannot be made the basis for awarding compensation to the petitioner. In such an event, it would be the Math that has suffered the loss, and such loss cannot be considered for the purpose of awarding compensation to the petitioner in his individual capacity. The Tribunal, based on the evidence on record and keeping in view the concept of functional disability, has rightly assessed the disability at 15%. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 16. Insofar as the compensation awarded under other heads is concerned, the sum of R.27,500/- awarded towards attendant charges, considering the fact that the petitioner was an inpatient for more than 25 days, appears to be on the lower side. Hence, one month’s income, i.e., Rs.20,000/-, is added to the said amount, making the total Rs.47,500/- under this head. The Tribunal has awarded - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 Rs.5,01,467/- towards medical expenses, based on the bills produced, which is justified. Similarly, the compensation awarded under various other heads such as future medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental shock, travel expenses, and incidental charges is also found to be appropriate and calls for no interference. 17. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads of nourishment, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, and loss of income during the laid-up period. Considering that the petitioner has suffered 45% whole body disability and was an inpatient for 25 days, it is evident that he would have required nourishing care during the recovery period. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of nourishment. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was hospitalised for 25 days and has sustained 45% disability, he is also entitled to compensation under the head of loss of amenities, which is quantified at Rs.30,000/-. The medical evidence on record indicates - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability, which would impair his ability to lead life in the manner he did prior to the accident. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life, which is assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner was an inpatient for a period of 25 days, and his monthly income has been taken at Rs.20,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, it is reasonable to infer that the petitioner would have been incapacitated from attending to his duties for at least two months following his discharge from the hospital. Accordingly, he is entitled to compensation for a total period of three months under the head of loss of income during the laid-up period, which is quantified at Rs.60,000/-. 18. Accordingly, the total compensation is re-assessed as under: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (in Rs.) Enhanced compensation (in Rs.) 1. Compensation for disability. 1,25,000/- 1,25,000/- 2. Attendant charges 27,500/- 47,500/- 3. Operation and medical expenses 5,01,467/- 5,01,467/- 4. Pain and suffering 25,000/- 25,000/- 5. Mental shock 25,000/- 25,000/- 6. Travelling expenses 20,000/- 20,000/- 7. General damages 75,000/- 75,000/- 8. Future expenses 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 9. Operation future charges 50,000/- 50,000/- 10. Nourishment charges - 30,000/- 11. Loss of amenities - 30,000/- 12. Loss of expectation of life - 50,000/- Loss of income during laid up period - 60,000/- Total 9,48,967/- 11,38,967/- 19. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,38,967/- as against Rs.9,48,967/- awarded by the Tribunal. 20. In view of the above, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 (ii) The impugned the judgment and award dated 26.11.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.40/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Yelburga, is modified. (iii) The appellant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,38,967/- as against Rs.9,48,967/- awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand only) shall be paid with interest at 8% p.a. by the respondents- Insurance Companies within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant as per the judgment and award of the Tribunal. (vi) The order of the Tribunal with regard to investment is maintained. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8993-DB MFA No. 100592 of 2017 Registry shall transmit the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1