- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200739 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: DEVENDRAPPA S/O SHANKRAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, & COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O KEB COLONY, KURNOOL ROAD, YERGERA VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESH G. S/O GUNDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-36/TB-8536, R/O DEVANAPALLI VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584 106. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, V.V.SUKHANI COMPLEX, LINGASUGUR ROAD, NEAR GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR-584 101, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 30.11.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.09.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN FILE BEARING SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.03.19 12:03:27 -0700 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 M.V.C.NO.200/2014 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Being aggrieved by the common judgment in MVC No.200/2014 dated 06.09.2017 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, the petitioner therein is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 21.09.2013 the petitioner along with the other petitioner in connected matter were proceeding in an auto rickshaw from their village Yergera to Kasbe Camp for coolie work and the auto rickshaw driver drove the same and after crossing Nallabanda cross, a tractor bearing Reg.No.KA- 36/TB-8536 came from behind and dashed to auto - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 rickshaw, resulting in accident. The petitioner contends that he had suffered fracture of both bones of right leg, tibia, fibula and other minor injuries; approached the Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer unit. The petitioner claimed that he was coolie, aged about 60 years, has suffered permanent disability, and sought adequate compensation from the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘T.T. unit’). 3. On being served with the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear and as such was placed exparte. Respondent No.2–Insurance Company appeared and resisted the claim petition by filing the written statement. 4. The respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the T.T. unit was on the proper side and there was no negligence on his part in causing the accident and also that the terms and conditions of the policy have been violated by the owner and driver of the T.T.unit. It was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 further contended that the negligence was on the part of the auto rickshaw driver and therefore respondent No.2 be absolved from paying any compensation. 5. On the basis of above contentions, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. The petitioner herein was examined as PW.2 and the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW3. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.160 were marked. The respondent got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 but no oral evidence was led. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of `1,43,343/- under the following heads : 1. Towards pain and sufferings `50,000/- 2. Loss of future earning `43,200/- 3. For medical expenses based on medical bills and evidence `20,143/- 4. Towards attendance charge and special food and diet and also transportation charges `30,000/- Total ````1,43,343/- 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 7. The submissions by learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 were heard. 8. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/ petitioner would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it failed to assess the disability properly and also that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is pointed out that the compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities in life’ and ‘loss of income during laid-up period’ were not awarded by the Tribunal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and there is no need for enhancement of compensation. 10. The fact that there was an accident involving the auto rickshaw in which the petitioner was traveling and T.T. unit owned and insured by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 not in dispute. The Tribunal has found that the charge- sheet having been laid against the driver of the tractor- trailer unit, the actionable negligence was on the part of the tractor driver. Therefore, it is only the quantum of compensation which is urged before this Court and the same has to be reassessed by this Court. 11. The petitioner herein had suffered fracture of both the bones of right leg and he was aged about 60 years. The records reveal that petitioner had suffered fracture of tibia, fibula and the injury over the left leg, ankle joint, head, hands etc. He was shifted to Navodaya Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Raichur where he underwent surgery like CRIF with ‘K’ wire for tibial fractures; ORIF was done for fibula fracture and he was inpatient from 21.09.2013 to 25.10.2013 i.e., 35 days. 12. PW.3 in his ocular evidence as well as the disability certificate produced at Ex.P.102, states that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 petitioner is walking with antalgic gait and ankle joint has restriction of the movements and therefore he opines that there is a disability of 16.9%. 13. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and the disability stated by PW.3, the Tribunal held that the functional disability of the petitioner who is aged about 60 years is 8%. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal. 14. So far as the income of petitioner is concerned, he did not produce any documentary evidence to show the income. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted the notional income and held the same to be at `5,000/- per month. It is relevant to note that the guidelines issued by KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalat prescribed notional income of `7,000/- per month for the year 2013. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, adopting the notional income of `7,000/- per month, the loss of future income is calculated as `7,000/-x12x8%x9=60,480/- by adopting the multiplier of ‘9’ for the age of 60 years. Consequently, the compensation under the head loss of income during laid-up period is calculated as `7,000/- x 3 = 21,000/-. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `30,000/- towards attendant charges, special food and diet, conveyance etc. Considering the fact that the petitioner was inpatient for 35 days, the same was enhanced to `40,000/-. 16. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Considering the fact that petitioner is aged about 60 years and he has cope-up with antalgic gait for his rest of his life and also considering that the pain and agony of an injury to the ankle and the fractures to both bones of the right leg would cause severe discomfort to him, it would be - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 appropriate to award a sum of `50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities in life’. 17. The compensation under the remaining heads does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of `2,41,623/- under the following heads :- 1. Towards pain and sufferings `50,000/- 2. Loss of future earning `60,480/- 3. For medical expenses based on medical bills and evidence `20,143/- 4. Towards attendance charge and special food and diet and also transportation charges `40,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period `21,000/- 6. Loss of amenities in life `50,000/- Total `2,41,623/- Less : awarded by the Tribunal `1,43,343/- Enhancement ````98,280/- Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of `98,280/- with interest. 18. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461 MFA No. 200739 of 2018 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of ````98,280/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (iii) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 CT: AK