- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200375 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MALLIKARJUN S/O NINGAPPA BIRADAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND DRIVER, R/O KAULAGI, TQ. AND DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHANTESH S/O SHEKAPPA KYARKOPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SANNAMAVAR ONI, SATTUR, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580 009. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 26.08.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. NO.XIII, VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR IN M.V.C. NO.166/2017 DATED 28.03.2018 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT. 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) Though, this appeal is slated for admission, the same is taken up for disposal with consent of learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation awarded by the IV Addl. District Judge and MACT, Vijayapur in MVC No.166/2017 dated 28.03.2018 is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 4. The petitioner contends that on 04.12.2016 while driving the auto rickshaw with two passengers, he was hit by another vehicle bearing No.KA-25/D-9648 resulting in the petitioner sustaining injuries. The petition lists as many as 15 injuries, which may also be found in the wound certificate at Ex.P5. The petitioner contended that he had to undergo splenectomy and had suffered fracture of the ribs and therefore he being an auto rickshaw driver earning Rs.12,000/- per month, aged about 28 years, he is entitled for adequate compensation. 5. The petition was opposed by the respondent- insurance company on the ground that there are no such injuries, which are discernible and moreover, the compensation claim was highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. It had contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and there were breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and evidence was let in and apart from the petitioner, the doctor who assessed disability was examined as PW2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. The respondents did not lead any evidence. 7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation under different heads as below; Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Medical expenses Rs.89,000/- 2 Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- 3 Loss of amenities Rs.35,000/- 4 Attendant charges Rs.03,000/- Total Rs.2,27,000/- 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to assess the disability as stated by PW2 and has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period also. It is submitted that the petitioner was inpatient for about 10 days and therefore, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 compensation awarded by the Tribunal being lower side, there is a need for enhancement. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the compensation awarded is adequate and there is no need for enhancement. He points out that the PW2 is not a treated doctor and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting his testimony regarding the disability. 10. The nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner as enlisted in the impugned judgment as well as in the injury certificate produced at Ex.P5 would show that most of the injuries are abrasions and as such are simple. However, it is relevant to note that the petitioner had sustained fracture of left transverse process of L1 and L3 vertebra, fracture of 1st to 4th of the right ribs and 1st to 2nd of the left ribs, there was a spleenic injury resulting in spleenectomy, mild right pleural effusion indicating peritoneal, hemoperitoneum. The testimony of the PW2 would indicate that due to spleenectomy there is depleted - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 immunity resulting in the petitioner suffering infections frequently. It is worth to note that the petitioner has not suffered any such disability which impairs his functionality as a driver. At the most, the fracture of the L1 and L3 vertebra would cause some discomfort to him and there is no such disability which was measured by the PW2 in respect of the same. The disability stated by PW2 is in respect of the spleenectomy and reduction in the liver size and due to laparotomy which was done. Evidently, the compensation cannot be awarded to the petitioner under the head of loss of income due to the disability suffered by him. The disability stated by PW2 is not relatable to any functional disability which the petitioner could suffer. However, it is relevant to note that the petitioner being a driver has to move to different places and that would increase his exposure for the infections. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered and discomfort for his functions, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life instead of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 11. Further, the petitioner though contended that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, has not produced any material to show the same and as such a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to him under the head of loss of income during laid up period. 12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- under the head of attendant charges, conveyance nourishment etc. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head. 13. Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,02,000/- under following heads. Medical expenses Rs.89,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs.25,000/- Total Less awarded by Tribunal Rs.3,29,000/- Rs.2,27,000/- Total enhancement Rs.1,02,000/- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1637 MFA No. 200375 of 2020 Therefore, 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 modified by awarding a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- 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) 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 SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: AK