- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201074/2019(MV-I) BETWEEN: MOULALI S/O KHAJA HUSSAIN, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS (NOW NIL), R/O H.NO. 1-1-30/E, MUSLIMPUR, YADGIR, TQ. & DIST. YADGIR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAY MORDE S/O PRAKASH MORDE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF BOLERO JEEP BEARING REGN. NO.KA-36/N-2473, R/O H.NO. 5-5-76, C/O AIRTEL OFFICE, NEAR SBI BANK, STATION AREA BRANCH, YADGIR, TQ. & DIST. YADGIR-585 202. 2. BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SY.NO.28, DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE-37, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 THROUGH ITS MANAGER CLAIMS DEPARTMENT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE, FOR R2; R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD.22.11.2018 IN MVC NO.156/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MACT-II, AT YADGIRI 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) 1. Though this appeal is slated for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.11.2018 passed in MVC No.156/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.-II, Yadgiri, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 4. Brief facts of the case is as below: a) The petitioner on 19.03.2017 while was proceeding by walk near the new Bus-Stand at Yadgiri, the driver of Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-36/N-2473 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, resulting in, the petitioner sustaining injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of the distal end of radius and dislocation of the right ulna, fracture of the right femur and fracture of upper ends of both bones of the right leg, fracture of distal end of both the bones of the left forearm. It was opined that there is traumatic amputation of the right lower limb below knee and he was admitted in RIMS Hospital and thereafter shifted to Suraksha Hospital. The Discharge - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 Summary and the hospital records would indicate the same. The petitioner approached the Tribunal contending that he was age of 32 years at the time of accident, was doing business of cloths and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and due to the amputation and other injuries suffered by him he has suffered loss of earning and as such, adequate compensation be awarded to him. b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and termed the compensation claimed as excessive, exorbitant and imaginary. c) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contended that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, its liability be exonerated. d) Based on contentions of both the parties, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and recorded the testimony of the PW1 and the Doctor who assessed his disability as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 evidence. No ocular evidence was led on behalf of the respondent No.2. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments, awarded a compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- under different heads as below: Sl. No. Heads Award 1 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2 Conveyance, attendant’s and nourishment food charges Rs.34,500/- 3 Medical expenses Rs.2,34,737/- 4 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- 5 Loss of earning during laid up period Rs.14,500/- 6 Loss of future earning on account of disability Rs.9,40,000/- 7 For removal of implants Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.13,48,737/- Rounded off Rs.13,50,000/- 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- claimant is before this Court. 6. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner had sustained amputation of the right lower limb. It is pertinent to note that the Discharge Summery shows that the amputation is below knee. However, the Disability Certificate at Ex.P9 indicates that the amputation is above - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 knee. The photograph at Ex.P15 shows that the amputation was above knee. After observing the testimony of the PW2 and the medical records, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the disability of the petitioner is 70% and accordingly calculated the compensation by adopting the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the disability assessed by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced and the compensation awarded under the other heads also needs to be reassessed. He submits that the petitioner was a businessman and though he had not produced any document, his avocation should have been considered in assessing the income of the petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company would defend the impugned judgment and seek dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels on both the sides and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that though the petitioner contends that he is a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 businessman doing a cloth business, no iota of evidence has been produced by him to establish the same. Evidently, the petitioner claims that he is a businessman, but having not produced any material to show it, it can only be said that he was doing some work in a cloth shop. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record, the notional income has to be accepted. 10. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), for settlement of the disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe the notional income of Rs.10,250/- for the year 2017. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable on the ground that they are in general conformity with the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner is accepted as Rs.10,250/- per month. 11. Insofar as the disability is concerned, it is evident that the petitioner was not involved in any avocation which - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 requires his traveling or movement. He was confined to a shop as per his owner’s say and therefore, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 70% is proper and correct. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects when the disability is assessed at 70%. Accordingly, considering future prospects at 40% of Rs.10,250/- i.e., 4,100/-, the total income comes to Rs.14,350/- per month. Thus, loss of future income on account of disability is calculated at Rs.14,350/- x 12 x 16 x 70% = Rs.19,28,640/- by adopting the multiplier of ‘16’. 12. Consequently, by presuming that the petitioner was unable to resume his normal work atleast for a period of six months, a sum of (Rs.10,250/- x 6) = Rs.61,500/- is awarded under the head of loss of income during laid up period. 13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- by considering the fact that he has suffered - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 fracture of the bones of both the hands in addition to the amputation of the lower limb. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.34,500/- under the heads conveyance charges, attendant’s charges and nourishment food charges. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 58 days, therefore, the compensation under this head is enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life, which needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 16. The Tribunal though observed that there is necessity future medical expenses for removal of implants, particularly to the hands, and awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, but fails to note that the petitioner also required a prosthesis. Therefore, in addition to Rs.25,000/- the petitioner is entitled for Rs.75,000/-, in total Rs.1,00,000/- under the future medical expenses, which would not carry any interest. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 17. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under head of medical expenses at Rs.2,34,737/- is just and proper and does not require any indulgence by this Court. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation as below: Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal Award by this Court 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.2,34,737/- Rs.2,34,737/- 3 Conveyance, Attendant’s and nourishment food charges Rs.34,500/- Rs.60,000/- 4 Loss of income due to permanent physical disability Rs.9,40,000/- Rs.19,28,640/- 5 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 6 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.14,500/- Rs.61,500/- 7 Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rounded to Rs.13,48,737/- Rs.13,50,000/- Rs.25,84,877/- Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.13,50,000/- Total enhancement Rs.12,34,877/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,34,877/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (excluding Rs.1,00,000/-) from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest, within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 201074 of 2019 (v) The deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount is as per the order passed by the Tribunal. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT: AK