- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200672 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: HUSENAPPA S/O AMBRAYYA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND AGRL. (NOW NIL), R/O H.NO.75, SAIDAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. YADGIR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SUBRAMANYAM S/O SANGRAM, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG. NO.TN-88/A-9577, R/O H.NO.1-83, VAGURAMPATTY, POST: VASANT PURAM, DIST. NAMMAKAL, TAMIL NADU STATE-637 001. 2. M/S ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SUNDRAM TOWERS, 45TH AND 46TH WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI-600014, THROUGH ITS MANAGER CLAIMS DEPARTMENT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 11.10.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2021 IN MVC NO. 133/2019 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-II AT YADGIR MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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) With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this matter is taken for final disposal even though it is slated for admission. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.133/2019 by learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT- II, Yadgir, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The petitioner contends that on 03.02.2019 at about 6:00 PM, the petitioner and the another Sabanna - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 were proceeding with one Husenappa on a motorcycle bearing number KA-05/JG- 6229 and near Rachanalli cross, a Lorry bearing No.TN-88/A-9577 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, resulting in the said Sabanna succumbed to the injuries and the petitioner suffering fracture and other injuries. The petitioner contended that he is aged 35 years, earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as an agricultural coolie and therefore, he is entitled for compensation from the owner and insurer of the Lorry. 4. On being served with the notice, the insurer of the Lorry appeared through its counsel and filed written statement. The owner of the Lorry remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2-insurance company contended that the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated, imaginary and it denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It also contended that the negligence was not on the part of the driver of the Lorry - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 but it was due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Therefore, it sought to absolve its liability. 6. The Tribunal held a common enquiry in MVC No.133/2019 as well as MVC No.79/2019 which was arising out of the death of Sabanna. Appropriate issues came to be framed and the petitioner herein was examined as PW2, Ex.P1 to 12 were marked and the Doctor who assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW2. The respondent No.2 examined it's official as RW1 and Ex.R1 to 7 were marked. 7. After hearing the arguments, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- to the petitioner under following heads: Loss of future earning Rs.1,62,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Nourishment food charges Rs.10,000/- Conveyance Rs.10,000/- Medical expenses Rs.1,34,729/- Loss of earning during treatment period Rs.2,100/- Attendant charges Rs.2,100/- Removal Implant Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.370,929/- Rounded off Rs.3,71,000/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal has considered the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.9,000/- but that should have been taken at a higher rate owing to the fact that accident had occurred in the year 2019. He submits the compensation awarded under the remaining heads is also on the lower side. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner and there is no need for enhancement of the same. 10. The records reveal that initially the petitioner was taken to NIMHANS Hospital Bengaluru, since he had a head injury. It was diagnosed that there was a left frontal and basifrontal contusion, Anterior hemispheric, subarachnoid hematoma and no surgical intervention was required as the petitioner showed improvement. Later he - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 was shifted to Deepak Hospital for the treatment of the fractures. Petitioner had also suffered fracture of both the bones of the right leg and underwent closed reduction and intra-medullary nailing. The discharge summary at Ex.P8 would show the nature of the treatment obtained by the petitioner. The disability certificate issued at Ex.P9 by PW3 would indicate that due to restrictions in mobility component there is a disability of 10%, towards stability component the disability is 5% and additional weightage for tenderness is 3%. However, the disability for the right lower limb is assessed at 19%. The correlation between the each components of the disability to the total disability is not forthcoming in a satisfactory manner even though certain calculation sheets are attached to the Ex.P9. Considering the fact that the Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 10% in the wake of the PW3 deposing that the physical disability is at 19%, this Court feels that no intervention is required in respect of the disability. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 11. So far as the notional income of the petitioner is concerned, the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of for settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.13,250/- per month for the year 2019. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered at Rs.13,250/- x 12 x 15 x 10% = Rs.2,38,500/-. 12. Consequently, the compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period is calculated for a period of 3 months as Rs.13,250 x 3 = Rs.39,750/-. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 14. The compensation under the head of loss of amenities also requires to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- owing to the head injury which the petitioner had suffered. 15. The compensation under the remaining heads do not require any enhancement. 16. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,44,079/- under the following heads:- Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Loss of future earning Rs.1,62,000/- Rs.2,38,500/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.30,000/- 3 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- 4 Nourishment food charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 5 Conveyance Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 6 Medical expenses Rs.1,34,729/- Rs.1,34,729/- 7 Loss of earning during treatment period Rs.2,100/- Rs.39,750/- 8 Attendant charges Rs.2,100/- Rs.2,100/- 9 Removal Implant Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.3,71,000/- Rs.5,15,079/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.3,71,000/- Total enhancement Rs.1,44,079/- 17. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Therefore, the following; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1954 MFA No. 200672 of 2022 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,44,079/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. (iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: AK