Karnataka High Court
Sharanappa vs Hanumanthappa And Anr on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
MFA No. 202670 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202670 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARANAPPA S/O GANESH
AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: NEERMANVI PURYA NAIK TANDA
TQ: MANVI, NOW RESIDING AT LAMANI COLONY,
STATION AREA RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O THIMMANNA NAGARABETTA
2025.02.07
11:01:57 -
0800
DRIVER KSRTC BUS NO.KA-01/F-9222,
R/O: NELAMANGALA BANGALORE-560001
(DISMISED)
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC DIVISIONAL OFFICE (CENTRAL OFFICE)
BANGALORE-560002 (SELF INSURED)
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE ORDER DATED 25.08.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH,
BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
MFA No. 202670 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.09.2018
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND MACT, RAICHUR IN MVC NO.206/2013.
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)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
02. The petitioner in MVC.No.206/2013 is before
this Court assailing the quantum of compensation awarded
to him in the judgment dated 29.09.2018 by the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT,
Raichur.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
03. The petitioner met with a road traffic accident
while he was traveling in auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-36-
A-1987 on 20.06.2012 at about 8:00 p.m. The driver of
the respondent - corporation drove the bus No.KA-01-F-
9222 in a high speed and negligent manner and dashed to
the auto-rickshaw, resulting in the petitioner suffering the
fracture of both the bones of the right arm and dislocation
of the hip joint and fracture of the acetabulum. He was
immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Manvi and
then to RIMS, Hospital at Raichur. The fractures were
treated with implants. He was inpatient for a period from
20.06.2012 to 16.07.21012. Therefore, the petitioner
claimed adequate compensation at the hands of the
Tribunal.
04. The respondent - corporation appeared and
resisted the petition contending that the compensation
claimed is exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. The
accident was due to the negligence on the part of the
auto-rickshaw driver. As such, the owner and insurer of
the auto-rickshaw are also necessary parties. It disputed
the age, income and occupation of the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
05. The Tribunal framed the appropriate issues and
the petitioner led evidence as PW.1 and the doctor who
assessed his disability was examined as PW.2. The driver
of the bus was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R.1 was marked
in evidence.
06. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal
awarded the compensation under the following heads:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Loss of future earning Rs.61,200/-
2. For medical expenses based on Rs.10,000/-
medical bills and evidence
Towards loss of income during
3. Rs.5,000/-
laid up period
4. Towards attendance charge and Rs.5,000/-
special food and diet
5. Transportation charges Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.86,200/-
07. The learned counsel appearing for appellant
would contend that the Tribunal failed to assess the
functional disability of the petitioner in the proper
perspective, without noticing the fact that he was aged
about 26 years and an agriculturist. There is functional
disability on account of fracture of his dominant hand. It is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
contended that the petitioner is involved in manual work.
Therefore, the Tribunal failed to consider the same. The
notional income is not properly assessed. It is submitted
that the compensation under the head of loss of amenities
in life has also been not awarded to the petitioner.
08. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent - corporation contends that the Tribunal
has adequately considered the disability at 5% on the
testimony of PW.2, who deposed that there is a disability
of 15%. It is contended that fracture has united is well and
there is no impediment for the petitioner to carry on his
work as a normal person.
09. It is worth to note that the petitioner is an
agriculturist and is aged about 26 years. The PW.2 being
not a treated doctor, has deposed that there is a disability
of 15%. Though, the PW.2 could not have deposed about
the functional disability or the disability of the whole body,
his evidence in respect of the restriction of the movement
of the limbs is relevant. Evidently, the petitioner had
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
suffered the fracture of both bones of the right arm i.e.,
radius and ulna at the shafts and had also suffered the
fracture of the acetabulum with dislocation of the hip joint.
These three injuries were suffered by the petitioner at the
age of 26 years.
10. Considering the fact that he was an
agriculturist, he would face the brunt of the fracture of the
both the bones of the right hand; which is the dominant
hand, it would be just and proper to hold that the
petitioner had suffered the functional disability of 10%.
The petitioner has not produced any material to show his
income. Therefore, the notional income has to be
considered.
11. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a
notional income of Rs.6,500/- per month for the year
2012. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has
held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
general conformity with the wages fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable.
Therefore, the loss of future income is calculated as
Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 17 x 10% = Rs.1,32,600/- by taking a
multiplier of 17 for the age of 26 years.
12. Consequently, holding that the petitioner was
unable to resume his work at least for a period of 03
months on account of the fractures suffered by him,
Rs.19,500/- is awarded to him under the head of loss of
income during the laid up period.
13. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life.
The dislocation of the hip joint is going to haunt the
petitioner for rest of his life. He being involved in manual
labour, it would cause discomfort to him. Hence,
Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of
loss of amenities in life.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
14. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable
compensation amount towards remaining heads. The
compensation under remaining heads do not require any
interference.
15. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,05,900/- under the
following heads :-
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded
No. by this Court
1. Loss of future income Rs.1,32,600/-
2. Loss of income during Rs.19,500/-
laid up period
3. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
4. Medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
based on medical bills
and evidence
5. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
and special food and
diet
6. Transportation Rs.5,000/-
charges
Total Rs.1,92,100/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.86,200/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.1,05,900/-
16. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:891
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
II. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,05,900/-
in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal
along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date
of petition till the date of deposit.
III. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding
deposit etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:AK
