HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8680 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: S G KULKARNI S/O GOPALRAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, STAMP VENDOR, XEROX AND TYPING SHOP, AND REAL ESTATE R/O DOOR NO. 1790/27, 5TH CROSS, SS EXTENSION, A BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRINIVAS S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DRIVER OF CAR, BEARING NO. KA-02/MH-6831 R/O 147, NAGAMANGALA MAGADI TALUK - 562 120 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT DEPARTMENT, YESHVANTHPURA, BENGALURU, PIN- 560 022, OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO. KA-02/MH-6831. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 2 - 3. THE PROPRIETOR KGID MOTOR BRANCH, VISHVESHWARAYYA TOWER, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOJEGOWDA, AGA FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.08.2024, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) *** THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03/04/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.535/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND VII MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ claimant seeking to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 03.04.2017, passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge & VII MACT, at Davanagere, in M.V.C. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 3 - No.535/2014 [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a global compensation in the sum of ₹50,000/- along with interest at 8% per annum. 2. By an order of this Court dated 22.08.2024, notice to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was dispensed with. Learned AGA appears for the respondent No.3/KGID. 3. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant/claimant was doing stamp vending, Xerox, typing and real estate business. On 27.11.2014, at about 6.30 p.m. when the appellant/claimant was travelling on his two-wheeler in Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-17/EL-732, the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-02/MH-6831 driving in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the two wheeler of the appellant/claimant. As a result, the appellant/claimant fell down and sustained injuries over his head, forehead, face and nose. The appellant/claimant was initially admitted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere, and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 4 - thereafter, for further treatment, he was admitted to Bapuji Hospital, where he was an in-patient for fifteen days. 4. The appellant/claimant states that he has spent a sum of ₹50,000/- towards medical expenses and thus filed a claim petition, seeking compensation in a sum of ₹5,00,000/- before the learned Tribunal. 5. The claim petition was contested before the learned Tribunal by respondent No.2 [Secretary, Agricultural Produce Department] as well as by respondent No.3 [the Proprietor, KGID, Motor Branch]. The claim qua respondent No.1/driver of the vehicle was given up by the appellant/claimant. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 contested the matter and filed their respective Written Statements. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “1) Whether the petitioner is proves that due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA.17/MH.6831 accident was occurred on 27.11.2013 at about 6 pm, near NH.4 road, Kundavada HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 5 - village, Davanagere and thereby claimant/petitioner sustained grievous injuries as stated in the petition? 2) Whether the respondents prove that, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner as contended in their objection statement? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitle for the compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate? 4) what order or award?” 7. Before the learned Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined himself as PW-1 and his Doctor as PW-2. He also exhibited fifteen (15) documents as Exs.P-1 to P-15. No witnesses were examined by the respondent nor were any documents marked on their behalf. 8. The learned Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, including the copies of the Wound Certificate at Ex.P-7, charge sheet at Ex.P-8, medical bills at Ex.P-9 and the OPD card at Ex.P-10, and also the police records which were marked, gave a finding that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver of the Car belonging to respondent No.3/KGID. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 6 - 8.1. In addition, the learned Tribunal found that as on date of the accident, the Respondent No.3 had issued an insurance policy and the policy was in force. Thus, it was held that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly liable to pay compensation. However, on the aspect of compensation, the learned Tribunal has held that, out of the four injuries, two injuries are simple in nature and two injuries are grievous and that although the Doctor (PW-2) has opined that the appellant/claimant has sustained permanent disability of 25% to 30% since the injuries are in respect of maxillary sinus and fracture of zygomatic arch of left side of face which will not affect the livelihood of the appellant / claimant, the Tribunal has deemed it fit to award global compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 8% per annum. The learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3/KGID argued that in Karnataka, Stamp vending is banned in the year 2002 itself, and by considering the nature of injuries and the avocation of the injured claimant, the learned Tribunal HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 7 - deemed it fit to award a global compensation in a sum of ₹50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that once the learned Tribunal has given a finding of negligence on the part of the respondent No.1/driver of the Car belonging to respondent No.3/KGID and also found of the Insurance policy to be valid, it should have awarded compensation as per the settled law under various heads. He submits that no amounts have been awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of income during laid-up period. He further submits that since the appellant/claimant has suffered permanent disability, reasonable amount ought to have been awarded towards loss of future earnings/future loss of income on account of disability. 10. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.3/KGID does not dispute the fact that there HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 8 - was a finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle and also that the insurance policy was valid. 11. This Court agrees with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. The Impugned Award, gives a finding on the fact that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver. It further gives a finding that the insurance policy is valid. However, it goes on to decide the issue of compensation without awarding any amounts as per the settled law. The relevant extract of the Impugned Award is set out below. “9…The police records disclose that about accident, oral evidence as well as documentary evidence alleged accident was occurred rash and negligent act of respondent and petitioner sustained injuries in said accident hence petitioner established accident in question and injuries. Therefore issue No.1 answer in affirmative.” “10…The accident was occurred on 27.11.2013. It clearly shows that, as on date of accident policy was in force. This fact is not denied by respondents. The respondent No.2 specifically contended that, third respondent insurance policy to its Car. Hence respondent No.2 and 3 are jointly severally liable to pay compensation.” HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 9 - xxx xxx xxx “13…Further, he admitted that, he has issued Ex.P.12 in respect of Maxillary sinus and fracture of Zygomatic arch of left side of face. There is no evidence/records regarding petitioner taken treatment after 21.12.2013 to 4.11.2016. The petitioner specifically contended that, he was doing stampeding real estate business and typewriting. By considering injuries and date of Ex.P.12 it is difficult to believe the version of PW.2 and recitals of Ex.P.12. No doubt, may suffer from injuries received at accident. But it will not affect on his profession. Learned DGP rightly argued that, in Karnataka State stamp vending is already banned in the year 2002 itself. By considering nature of injuries and profession of petitioner it is fit case to award global compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded.” [Emphasis supplied] 12. This Court has also examined the oral and documentary evidence that were placed before the Ld. Trial Court. The appellant/claimant has produced Wound Certificate at Ex.P-7, medical bills at Exs.P-9 to P-11, totalling a sum of ₹14,041/-. The appellant/claimant has also placed on record as Ex.P-10, the OPD card as well as the prescriptions. He has also examined his Doctor as PW- 2, who, in his affidavit evidence, has stated that he was the Doctor, who treated the appellant/claimant and he has issued a Disability Certificate in respect of the same. The HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 10 - Disability Certificate is at Ex.P-12, which sets out that the appellant/claimant is suffering from functional disability of 25% to 30% of his body. The Disability Certificate at Ex.P- 12 is extracted below: “DISABILITY CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Sri. S.G.Kulkarnis S/o Gopal Rao Kulkarni, aged about 54 years, met with road traffic accident on NH-4, near Geniss Hotel between motor bike and car on 27.11.2013. As per Xerox copies of the wound certificate and discharge card of the patient issue by CMO, Chigateri District Hospital Davangere shows fracture of maxillary sinus and fracture of zygomatic arch of left side of face. Now the patient complains of pain in the left side of face and difficulty in chewing food, head ache and sleep disturbance. On examination clinically it is found that tenderness over the left side of the face and difficulty in movement of mandibular joint and tenderness over joint. I have advised for the X-Ray of skull ap and lateral view which shows fracture mal union of maxillary sinus and zygomatic arch Considering the above clinical, radiology and functional factor, I am of the opinion that the patient has got 25 to 30 percent of disability and loss of function of the body. While issuing this certificate I have gone through the following records 1. Wound certificate issued by CMO, Chigateri district Hospital 2. Discharge Summary card issued by Bapuji Hospital, Davangere 3. X-Ray taken at City Hospital, Davangere. Identification marks: Mock of Chest.” [Emphasis supplied] HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 11 - 13. The appellant/claimant, at the time of the accident, was 54 years of age. Since the Disability Certificate sets out that there is facial injury and permanent disability of 25% to 30%, this Court deems it apposite to assess the disability to the whole body at one third. Thus, the whole body disability would be 1/3rd of 30% = 10%. 14. There is no challenge on the disability and given that the appellant/claimant was 54 years at the time of accident, the multiplier is to be taken as ‘11’. Thus, the future loss of earning capacity would be Rs.1,12,200/- i.e. Rs.8,500/-x12x10%x’11’. 15. In addition, in terms of the settled law and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court deems it apposite to award a sum of ₹40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.14,041/- towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and comforts in life, Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs.25,500/- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 12 - towards loss of income during laid up period, at the rate of Rs.8,500/- for a period of three months. Hence, the revised calculation is as follows: Sl. No. Particulars Amount In Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 40,000-00 2 Medical expenses 14,014-00 3 Loss of income during laid up period [Rs.8,500/-x3 months = Rs.25,500/-] 25,500-00 4 Pain and suffering 15,000-00 5 Future treatment 30,000-00 6 Loss of earning capacity [₹8,500/-x12x10%x’11’] 1,12,200-00 Total 2,36,714-00 Less: awarded by Tribunal 50,000-00 Enhanced compensation 1,86,714-00 16. In view of the aforegoing, this Court deems it apposite to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 03.04.2017, passed by the learned III Additional Senior HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 13 - Civil Judge & VII MACT, at Davanagere, in M.V.C. No.535/2014, is modified, enhancing the compensation of Rs.1,86,714/-[Rupees One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fourteen] along with interest applicable thereon as awarded by the learned Tribunal. (iii) The respondent No.3/KGID shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest applicable thereon, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iv) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant/claimant. (v) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Tribunal remains undisturbed. (vi) All pending applications stand closed. (vii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10731 MFA No. 8680 of 2018 - 14 - (viii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Trial Court, along with its records. (ix) No order as to costs. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* / KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA