- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200267 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHASHIKUMAR @ SHASHIKANTH S/O MADEPPA DHUMMANSURE, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & MILK VENDING, R/O NANDGAON, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR-585101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHAMBULING S/O MADEPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O NANDGAON VILLAGE, TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR-584101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. JAWALI COMPLEX, KALABURAGI-585104. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 01.07.2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.V.C.NO.631/15 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT HUMNABAD, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-31.08.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.631/2015 BY MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT HUMNABAD AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.5,97,760/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.30,00,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, ‘the M.V. Act’] seeking enhancement of compensation as against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Humnabad [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] in MVC No.631/2015. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 3. Appellant was the claimant before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 was respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. 4. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 5. The case of the claimant is that the he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 20.06.2015. It is alleged that on the said date at about 22.15 hours when the claimant was proceeding on a Hero Honda Passion motor cycle as a pillion rider of the said vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-2286 from Humnabad to Nandgaon village, when they reached near Milk Diary on N.H.-9 village Hudgi, at that time, the rider of the said motor cycle started riving in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the opposite motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/H-7818, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the hospital - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 and for further treatment to a hospital at Solapur. He has suffered multiple fractures and injuries and he was admitted in the hospital for 22 days. He has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was doing milk vending business and due to the accident he lost the earning capacity. There were multiple fractures and grievous injury over the spleen organ and it was removed through surgery. Hence, he prayed for granting compensation on various heads. 6. The respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle appeared and filed his statement of objections by denying the rash and negligent driving, the accident, nature of injuries, age, occupation, income as false. However it is contended that liability, if any, should be fastened on the Insurance Company. The respondent no.2 - Insurance Company appeared through their counsel and filed statement of objections by denying the nature of accident, age, occupation income, injury, disability of the injured as false and also contended that the compensation claimed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 by the claimant is exorbitant and excessive. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “(i) Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.06.2015 at about 22-15 hours on N.H.9 near Milk diary Hudgi, Tq. Humnabad, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/J-2286 and vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-29/H-7818 as alleged? (ii) Whether the petitioner further proves that he is entitled for compensation? If so what is the quantum and from whom? (iii) What order or award?” 8. In order to prove the case of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and the doctor as PW- 2 to prove the disability and got marked 184 documents. On behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company, officer - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 but no documents were marked. 9. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and allowed the petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.5,97,760/- on various heads by fastening the liability on respondent No.2 – Insurance Company as under: Heads of compensation Compensation amount Towards loss of future income Rs.1,95,840/- Towards pain and agony Rs.10,000/- Towards Medical expenditure Rs.3,64,920/- Towards attendant charges, food and conveyance Rs.11,000/- Towards amenities and nutrition Rs.10,000/- Towards loss of income during the period Rs.6,000/- Total Rs.5,97,760/- The claimant, being unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation, has filed this appeal before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the Tribunal committed an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 error in taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month even though it is considered as Rs.8,000/- per month in the Lok Adalath as per the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is a meager amount of Rs.10,000/-. There is no award in respect of disfigurement of face. Even the compensation awarded for the loss of income during laid up period is very less. He also submits that the amount awarded towards loss of amenities is also very less. He further submits that the claimant was admitted in the hospital at Solapur for 22 days and the amount awarded towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges at Rs.11,000/- is very meager. Such being the case, the compensation requires to be enhanced accordingly. The learned counsel also contended that the evidence of the doctor PW-2 clearly goes to show that the claimant has suffered 49% apart from various multiple factures like fracture of zygomatic arch, fracture of mandible and lateral wall of L-orbit, multiple fracture of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 face bones and rupture of spleen. Such being the case, taking 16% disability to the whole body is not correct. Hence, he prayed for enhancing the same. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company supported the award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal, by considering the evidence on record, awarded just and fair compensation and there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, the points that arise for our consideration are: Whether the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is meager and insufficient to the injuries sustained by the claimant which is required for enhancement? If so, to what extent? 13. We have perused the records, especially issue No.1. The rash and negligent driving and the accident in question are not disputed as the claimant has produced - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 – complaint, Exs.P3 to 7 are the statement, spot panchanama, wound certificate, IMV report, and charge sheet which is filed against the rider of the motor cycle and the Insurance Company. Such being the case, the factum of accident has been proved by the claimant. Ex.P-5 wound certificate reveals that the claimant suffered multiple fracture injuries. Therefore, we are required to consider only as to whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or not. 14. The claimant has given evidence regarding multiple injuries sustained by him. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate which reveals the injuries sustained by him in respect of face, zygomatic region, mandible fracture, head injury i.e., cerebral injuries apart from the spleen injury due to which the spleen is said to be operated and removed. Ex.P-5 reveals there were 7 multiple injuries sustained by him out of which injury Nos.1 to 5 are grievous injuries and injury Nos.6 and 7 are simple - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 injuries. It reveals that he has admitted in hospital for 22 days. On the head of pain and suffering awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- is meager and insufficient to the multiple injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The medical records are produced as per Exs.P- 9 to P-167, almost 158 documents are produced, which reveals that he has taken various treatments. He has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,64,920/- which is based upon the documentary evidence. Hence, we propose to affirm the same and claimant is entitled for Rs.3,64,920/- as it is. 16. As regards the food, nourishment and attendant charges, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,000/-. The claimant was admitted in the hospital for 22 days that too at Solapur and definitely one attendant was required to take care of him and was required extra food and nourishment. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.25,000/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 to the claimant towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. 17. As regards loss of amenities, the claimant suffered head injury, zygomatic fracture, mandible fracture and as per the evidence of doctor chewing is also difficult. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- as loss of amenities therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances, since the age of the claimant is 30 years and he has to suffer throughout his life, hence, we propose to award Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. 18. As regards compensation towards loss of income during laid up period, the Tribunal considered the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month. Even in the Lok Adalath, as per the guidelines of the Legal Services Authority, income is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2015. Hence, we propose to take the income at Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income. The claimant was admitted in the hospital for 22 days. Even after discharge, he might have - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 needed rest and taken bed rest atleast for four months. Hence, if Rs.8,000/- is taken as the income of the claimant, the loss of income during laid up period comes to Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 4 months). 19. As regards to the evidence of doctor, due to facial injuries and fractures, he is suffering from disfigurement. Age of the claimant is 30 years, he has to suffer for another 30 to 40 years with the disfigurement of face. Therefore, as a special case, we propose to award Rs.25,000/- towards disfigurement of face. 20. As regards the disability, the Tribunal has considered disability at 16% to the whole body by taking into consideration 1/3rd of 49% given by the doctor. We have examined Ex.P-167 the disability certificate issued by the doctor and evidence of PW-2. As per Ex.P-167 the disability certificate, the claimant complained of deformed look of face, salivation from L-side of mouth in sleep, on and off headache and giddiness, weakness in L-side of - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 upper and lower limbs, watering in left eye and dimness of vision, unable to bend and work due to pain in abdomen, unable to lift weight due to pain in abdomen, indigestion, loss motions, acidity and loss of appetite. On examination and investigation the doctor has opined that patient had grievous head injury, brain injury, face injury and spleenic laceration due to blunt abdominal trauma as found on clinical and radiological examination done following the accident. Presently he has post head injury facial paresis and hemoperesis on L-side accounts for disability of 20%, post spleenectomy causing digestive disturbances and weakness of abdominal wall is impairing the physical working accounts for disability of 30% and L-side orbital wall fracture and zygomatic arch fracture injury is causing deformed L-eye and pain and watering in eye accounts for disability of 20% to facial injury. The doctor has opined that cumulative disability sustained by the claimant in accident is 49% to entire body. Normally the Court use to consider 1/3rd of the injury or disability to whole body but the doctor himself has opined 49% to the whole body. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 However, by considering the facts and circumstances, the injuries to the head and the spleen, the doctor has opined 49%. The tribunal has considered only 16% which is very meager. Multiple factures and injuries and removal of spleen organ and apart from the mandible fracture definitely causes disability throughout his life. He has to suffer indigestion problem due to non-functioning of the spleen. Therefore, we propose to consider atleast disability at the rate 30% towards the whole body instead of 49% suggested by the doctor. Even we have perused the cross-examination of PW-2 and nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of doctor. Such being the case, we are of the considered view that 30% disability has to be taken to the whole body. If Rs.8,000/- is considered as income and applying multiplier of ‘17’ and disability at 30%, the loss of future earning comes to Rs.4,89,600/- [Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 17 x 30%]. Accordingly, we re-ass the compensation to the claimant as under: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 Sl. No. Heads of compensation Compensation amount 1. Loss of income due to disability Rs.4,89,600/- 2. Pain and agony Rs.50,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- 4. Medical Expenses Rs.3,64,920/- 5. Food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges Rs.25,000/- 6. Disfigurement of face Rs.25,000/- 7. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.32,000/- Total Rs.10,36,520/- Award of the Tribunal Rs.5,97,760/- Enhanced Amount Rs.4,38,760/- 21. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 31.08.2017 passed in MVC No.631/2015 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Humnabad is modified. (iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,38,760/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1551-DB MFA No. 200267 of 2018 (iv) Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% of the amount is directed to be deposited in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years and remaining 50% of the amount shall be released to the appellant/claimant. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:SI