- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201084 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SYED AFZAL S/O SYED SHAKHA PATEL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585 330. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THAKUR PADMA SINGH W/O THAKUR MOHAN SINGH, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN PRIVATE SECTOR, R/O: H.NO.7-1-37, LEELANAGAR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD – 500 016. 2. M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VIVEKANAND CORNER, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, CLUBROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, HUMNABAD IN MVC NO.402/2018, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 05.02.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Humnabad in MVC no.402/2018, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Basavaraj R Math, learned counsel for appellant submits that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that on 05.06.2018, when claimant was tying rope on rear side of his vehicle after loading goods in lorry bearing Reg.no.MH-13/AX-3361, driver of car bearing Reg.no.TS-09/EN-6229, drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant, causing accident. Due to same, claimant sustained multiple fractures and injuries i.e. fracture of both bones of both legs. Despite taking treatment at Mallareddy Hospital, Hyderabad etc., he sustained permanent physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against insurer and owner of car. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 3. On contest, owner was placed ex-parte. Only insurer appeared and opposed petition denying entire claim petition averments, alleging violation of policy conditions etc. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.SB Kamareddy, as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-14. Respondents did not lead any evidence. 4. On consideration, tribunal held that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car, claimant sustained permanent physical disability and was entitled for compensation from insurer, assessed as follows: 1 Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00 2 Medical Expenses, Rs. 1,48,992-00 3 Attendant, Conveyance charges & Nutrition of food etc Rs. 15,000-00 4 Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000-00 Loss of future income Rs. 3,36,000-00 Total Compensation Rs. 5,39,992-00 5. Dissatisfied with same, claimant was in appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 6. It was firstly submitted that claimant was 45 years of age, working as driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month with Rs.200/- as daily bhatta. However, tribunal considered his monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, which was inadequate. It was nextly submitted that though he sustained fractures of both bones of both legs and also fracture of femur of left leg, tribunal awarded meager sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. It was submitted that he was inpatient for 75 days and tribunal awarded meager sum of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant and other incidental expenses. No compensation was awarded towards loss of amenities and only Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards future medical expenses, which were grossly inadequate and sought for enhancement. It was lastly submitted that PW-2, doctor, who had examined claimant had assessed permanent physical disability at 65%, tribunal considered functional disability at only 25% and awarded inadequate compensation and it also failed to add future prospects to monthly income. Based on above, he sought for allowing appeal. 7. On other hand, Sri Subash Mallapur, learned counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, tribunal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 had assessed compensation after due appreciation of entire material on record while awarding compensation under each head separately, leaving no scope for enhancement. It was further submitted that there were disparities between discharge summary issued by Mallareddy Hospital, Hyderabad and records of Kamareddy Hospital, Kalaburagi, namely non- mentioning of injuries/treatment to left leg is concerned. On said ground, he submits that award did not call for interference. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and records. 9. From above, since only claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement, while insurer has accepted liability, only point that would arise for consideration is : “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 10. Insofar as, monthly income is concerned, indeed claimant has stated that he was working as driver and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. with Rs.200/- per day as bhatta. But, to substantiate same, no specific material evidence was led. To - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 substantiate occupation, he sought to rely upon Ex.P-13 i.e. driving licence. Accident occurred in year 2018 and in absence of specific evidence, tribunal assessed income notionally at Rs.8,000/-, while notional income for year 2018 is Rs.11,750/-. But, Ex.P-13 indicates that claimant was holding driving license to drive LMV with transport endorsement with PSV badge. Therefore, assessment of income on notional terms would not be appropriate. It would be appropriate to consider monthly income of claimant at Rs.20,000/-. As per, disability certificate at Ex.P-11, PW-2 assessed permanent physical disability at 65%, accounting for same by apportionment in respect of restricted moments of each limb, tribunal assessed functional disability at 25%, merely by saying that disability assessed by doctor cannot be taken into consideration. Same does not appear appropriate. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar and Another1 has stated that functional disability has to considered taking note of physical disability and its effect on profession of injured. With grade 3 fractures sustained on both bones of both legs and fracture to femur on one leg, it would not be hard for this Court to 1 (2011) 2 SCC 343 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 presume that with disability caused, driving would be difficult. Taking note of possibility of alternative avocation, it would be appropriate to consider functional disability at 50%. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation2 even in case of personal injuries, claimant would be entitled for addition of future prospects to monthly income. Taking note of fact that claimant was aged 45 years and self employed, 25% has to be added to his monthly income. Thus, computation of loss of earning would be as follows: (Rs.20,000 + 25%) x 50% x 12 x 14 = Rs.21,00,000/- 11. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,48,992/- towards medical expenses against medical bills produced. Since, there is complete reimbursement, there is no scope for enhancement. Claimant has sustained Grade III fractures on both bones of both legs as well as femur of left leg. Since, he has sustained three major fractures, award of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering would be grossly inadequate. It is found appropriate 2 (2022) 18 SCR 427 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 to enhance it to Rs.75,000/-. Considering inpatient treatment period of 75 days, award of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant and other incidental expenses would be grossly inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance it to Rs.50,000/-. Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities, taking note of nature of disability sustained, it would be appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards same. Since, there are implants in situ, claimant would require amount for their removal. Award of only Rs.10,000/-, would be inadequate and is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. Considering, duration of treatment and nature of injuries sustained, it would be appropriate to consider 4 months as period of lay off. Thus, he would be entitled for Rs.80,000/- towards same. Thus, total compensation works out to Rs.25,83,992/-, as follows: 1 Pain and suffering Rs.75,000-00 2 Medical Expenses, Rs.1,48,992-00 3 Attendant, Conveyance charges & Nutrition of food etc Rs.50,000-00 4 Future medical expenses Rs.30,000-00 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3424 MFA No. 201084 of 2022 5 Loss of future income Rs.21,00,000-00 6 Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000-00 7 Loss of income during lay off period Rs.80,000-00 Total Compensation Rs.25,83,992-00 12. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed, judgment and award dated 05.02.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT, Humnabad in MVC no.402/2018 is modified. ii. Claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,83,992/-. Respondent no.2-insurer is directed to deposit same before tribunal with interest at 6% from date of petition, till payment. iii. Conditions in award about deposit and release would also apply to enhanced compensation proportionately. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7