Karnataka High Court
Manjunath So Siddalingappa Hallikeri vs Prabhappa S/O Shrishailappa Kori on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
MFA No. 23083 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23083 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATH S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA HALLIKERI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O: YARAGUPPI, TQ: KUNDAGOL,
NOW AT VIKRAM BUILDING, 1ST CROSS,
JAYANAGAR, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A.M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
APPEARED THROUGH VC)
AND:
1. PRABHAPPA S/O. SHRISHAILAPPA KORI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O: MULGUND, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.
Digitally signed
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
Location: High 1ST FLOOR, ANKOLA BUILDING,
Court of
Karnataka OPPOSITE TO DISTRICT COURT,
P. B. ROAD, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.03.2012
MADE IN M.V.C.NO.229/2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE FAST
TRACK - III AT DHARWAD AND CONSEQUENTLY ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
MFA No. 23083 of 2012
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present appeal is filed by the claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated 09.03.2012
passed in MVC No.229/2011 by the Court of the Fast
Track-III, Dharwad1 seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration
of the present appeal are that the claimant filed MVC
No.229/2011 claiming compensation for the injuries
sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on
13.11.2010. The Tribunal by its judgment and award
dated 09.03.2012 partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded a sum of ₹3,46,300/- together with interest at
6% per annum from the date of the petition till its
Hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
realization. Seeking enhancement of the compensation,
the present appeal is filed by the claimant.
3. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri S.
M. Kalawad for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel
Sri. N.R. Kuppelur for respondent No.2/Insurer. Perused
the records including records of the Tribunal.
4. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and
liability has not been challenged. Hence, the only aspect
that is considered in the present appeal is with regard to
the quantum of compensation.
5. The Injury Certificate (Ex.P.4), Discharge Card
(Exs.P.7 to P.11) and as well as the Disability Certificate
(Ex.P.12) and also the testimony of the Doctor/PW.2
discloses that the claimant sustained fracture of tibia and
fibula of left leg and comminuted fracture of tibia and
fibula of the right leg. He was treated as an impatient for a
total period of 57 days and he has undergone surgery on
three different occasions. The Photographs have also been
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
produced at Ex.P.20. The Doctor/PW.2 has also deposed
that the implants are required to be removed and future
medical expenses will also is required to be incurred.
6. The claimant has averred that he was carrying
on business by running a medical shop and he has
produced the statutory license/permission as Exs.P.13 to
P.17.
7. The Tribunal has not assessed the disability and
not awarded any amount towards loss of future earning
capacity as well as loss of income by recording findings
that the claimant has not produced any document to show
his income and has further not produced any document to
show that the license issued for running of medical shop
has been terminated.
8. Although the claimant/PW.1 has deposed that
after the accident in question, he has become unemployed
and lost his business income and suffered from financial
hardship, there are no documentary materials produced to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
demonstrate the same. However, having regard to the
nature of injury sustained and the period of treatment, the
findings of the Tribunal that no loss of income and future
loss of running capacity is required to be awarded is
erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
9. It is forthcoming that the Doctor/PW.2 has
deposed that the claimant has sustained disability of 25%
to the left leg and 20% to the right leg. However, the
Doctor has also deposed fractures have been united on the
right leg and there has been delayed union in the left leg.
The Doctor has also not assessed disability to the whole
body. Keeping in mind the nature of injuries and the
extent of disability as deposed by PW.2/Doctor, it is just
and proper that the disability to the whole body be
assessed as 8%.
10. Although the claimant has deposed that he is
carrying on business by running medical shop and has
produced Exs.P.13 to P.17, in that regard, no documents
have been produced to demonstrate the income that he
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
has earned. It is relevant to note that in the cross-
examination PW.1 has stated that he has continued the
business. Since the claimant has not produced any
income, the income as per the chart prepared for
settlement of cases in the Lok-Adalath by the High Court,
Legal Service Authority will have to be recorded and
having regard to the date of the accident, the income of
the claimant is assessed at ₹5,500/-.
11. Having regard to the age of the claimant as on
date of the accident the appropriate multiplies is assessed
as 15.
12. Although learned counsel for the Insurer
vehemently contends that since he has continued the
business after the accident and no future loss of earning
capacity is required to be awarded, keeping in mind the
nature of injuries and the fact that having regard to the
resultant in disability, he will not able to carryon the
business in the same manner as he was doing prior to the
date of the accident, it is just and proper that the loss of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
earning capacity be awarded in the terms of the extent of
disability assessed.
13. In view of the aforementioned, the quantum of
compensation assessed by the Tribunal is reassessed as
follows:
a) The Tribunal has awarded a total
compensation of ₹50,000/- towards pain
and suffering. Keeping in mind the nature
of injuries sustained and period of
treatment, it is just and proper that a
further sum of ₹20,000/- be awarded and
the compensation towards pain and
suffering be reassessed at ₹70,000/-.
b) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
₹2,26,300/- towards medical expenses
which is as per actual medical bills which is
just and proper.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
c) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Having regard to the nature of treatment
that the claimant is undergone, it is just
and proper that a further a sum of
₹20,000/- be awarded for the same and the
said compensation is reassessed as
₹60,000/-.
d) The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards transportation and
nutrition charges. The claimant deposed he
has engaged a vehicle for the purpose of
taking further treatment. Having regard to
the period during which he has undergone
the treatment as well as the follow-up
treatment that he has taken, it is just and
proper that further a sum of ₹15,000/- be
awarded for the same and the
compensation is reassessed at ₹45,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
e) The Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards loss of income. It is forthcoming
from Exs.P.7 to P.11 that the claimant has
taken treatment up to 09.07.2011. Having
regard to the same, the period of treatment
is taken as 6 months and loss of income is
calculated for the said period is assessed as
(₹5,500 x 6) = ₹33,000/-.
f) Although the Doctor has deposed that a
further sum of ₹32,000/- to ₹35,000/- is
required for future medical expenses for
removal of implants, the claimant has not
produced any material to indicate that he
has incurred future medical expenses.
However, having regard to the medical
evidence that implants have been inserted,
it is just and proper that a sum of
₹25,000/- be awarded towards future
medical expenses.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
g) The loss of earning capacity is assessed at
(₹5,500 x 8/100 x 12 x 15) ₹79,200/-.
14. Thus compensation is re-assessed as follows:
Sl. Particulars Before the Before
No. Tribunal this Court
1. Pain and Suffering ₹50,000 ₹70,000
2. Loss towards Medical ₹2,26,300 ₹2,26,300
Expenses
3. Loss of amenities ₹40,000 ₹60,000
4. Transportation and ₹30,000 ₹45,000
nutrition charges
5. Loss of income during - ₹33,000
laid up period
6. Future medical - ₹25,000
expenses
7. Loss of earning - ₹79,200
capacity
Total ₹3,46,300 ₹5,38,500
15. Thereby, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a
total sum of Rs.5,38,500/-. After deducting a sum of
Rs.3,46,300/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,92,200/-
(Rs.5,38,500/- - Rs.3,46,300/-), along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16231
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
09.03.2012, passed in M.V.C.
No.229/2011, by the Court of Fast Track-
III, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the
extent of holding that the appellant is
entitled for an additional sum of
Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till realization,
in addition to the amount awarded by the
Tribunal. The judgment and award of the
Tribunal in all other respects remained
unaltered.
iii) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company
shall deposit the said amount within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.
iv) Modified award to be drawn accordingly.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
