- 1 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103877 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN: UMESHAPPA S/O. TEJAPPA LAMANI @ PUMAPPA TEJAPPA LAMANI S/O. TEJAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. GOVIND EXTENSION, TANDA, RANEBENNUR, TQ: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANNAPPA S/O NAGARAJAPPA MEGALAGERI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. GOVIND EXTN., TANDA, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. NAGARAJ MEGALAGERI S/O BASAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF M/C BEARING NO.KA 17/TZ-2898, R/O. VADERAYANAHALLI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:09 +0530 - 2 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OPP: BAPUJI DENTAL COLLEGE DAVANAGERE. (INSURER OF MOTOR BIKE NO.KA 17/TZ-2898) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.757/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION & ETC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 3 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 CAV JUDGMENT The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,(‘the M.V.Act’ for short) challenging the award of compensation made by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), in M.V.C. No.757/2013 dated 07.09.2015. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that:- On 06.03.2013 at about 9:30 p.m., the appellant while walking on NH-4 road near Makanur Cross with his son, was hit by a Hero Honda Splendor Pro motorcycle bearing No.KA-17/TZ-2898, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant sustained grievous injuries, including multiple lacerations, comminuted fracture of left tibia and fibula, and stiffness of knee and ankle joints. The appellant was initially treated at Government Hospital, Harihar, and subsequently admitted as an inpatient at Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, for a period of about two months. Medical expenses of Rs.40,000/- were - 4 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 incurred, and the appellant continues to require follow-up treatment. The appellant is the sole breadwinner of the family and hence, preferred a claim petition before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Ranebennur seeking compensation. The Tribunal, by its award dated 07.09.2015, granted a total compensation of Rs.1,57,892/-, which the appellant contends is grossly inadequate considering the injuries sustained, loss of income, permanent disability, and other heads of damages. Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is neither sound nor sustainable in law and that the compensation awarded is wholly inadequate. It is submitted that the award is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore calls for modification by this Court. - 5 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 4. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the prolonged treatment undergone by him, including hospitalization for nearly two months, while determining the compensation. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries, including head injuries, injuries to the lower limbs, deformity of the left ankle, and chest pain. Despite the seriousness of these injuries, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is stated to be on the lower side and requires enhancement. It is also contended that though the medical evidence assessed permanent disability at 40%, the Tribunal restricted the same to 10% without assigning adequate reasons, resulting in an unjust award towards loss of future income. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded under various other heads such as loss of income during the laid-up period, loss of amenities - 6 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 and enjoyment of life, medical expenses, and conveyance, diet, nourishment, and attendant charges is inadequate and not in accordance with settled principles of law, and therefore warrants enhancement. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal’s award is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 8. On careful consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on negligence and liability does not call for interference. The delay in lodging the FIR is satisfactorily explained, as the appellant was immediately shifted to the hospital and was under treatment. The contention regarding absence of a valid driving licence is not supported by any cogent evidence. For the purpose of reassessment, the notional monthly income of the appellant is taken at Rs.7,000/-, in - 7 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 terms of the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for accidents of the year 2013. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance, diet, extra nourishment, and attendant charges. The records disclose that the appellant was hospitalized and under treatment for nearly two months and would have required assistance for food, mobility, and personal care. He would also have incurred conveyance expenses for follow-up treatment. Having regard to the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, the compensation awarded under this head is inadequate and is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The medical evidence indicates stiffness of the knee and ankle joints, muscle wasting, and restriction of movement, which would adversely affect the appellant’s ability to lead a normal life. The amount awarded under this head is on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries and the - 8 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is just and reasonable and is accordingly awarded in place of Rs.5,000/-. 11. With respect to the loss of income during the laid-up period, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.6,000/-. The evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant was hospitalized for nearly one month for treatment, and he would not have been in a position to attend to his work during the said period as well as the subsequent follow-up treatment. Hence, a period of two months is required to be considered. Taking the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.14,000/- under this head. 12. Insofar as loss of future earning capacity is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed permanent disability at 10%, which appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the income adopted by the Tribunal requires correction. Taking the monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs.84,000/-. - 9 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 Applying 10% disability and the multiplier of 14, having regard to the age of the appellant at 45 years, the compensation under this head is reassessed at Rs.1,17,600/- in place of Rs.75,600/-. 13. The compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and medical expenses is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference. 14. Accordingly, compensation is reassessed as under: Head of Compensation Tribunal Award (Rs.) Enhanced Award (Rs.) Pain and Suffering 35,000 35,000 Medical Expenses 32,292 32,292 Conveyance, Diet, Extra Nourishment, Attendant Charges 4,000 10,000 Loss of Income during Laid- up Period 6,000 14,000 Loss of Future Earning Capacity 75,600 1,17,600 Loss of Amenities and Enjoyment of Life 5,000 30,000 Total 1,57,892 2,38,892 15. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 10 - MFA No.103877 of 2017 ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,38,892/- to the appellant, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. (iii) The Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) The appellant is not entitled to any interest for the period of delay of 671 days in filing this appeal, which is waived as per the order dated 20.07.2021. (v) No costs. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE Rsh / CT:VP