Karnataka High Court
Hanumantha @ Hanumesh vs Shivappa Kumbar And Anr on 10 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
MFA No. 200019 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200019 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HANUMANTHA @ HANUMESH S/O HANUMAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NOW NIL),
R/O: BUNKALADODDI VILLAGE,
TQ. DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR,
NOW RESIDING AT SAI COLONY,
RAMPUR ROAD, RAICHUR-584 103.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVAPPA KUMBAR S/O GURUSANAPPA,
Digitally
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
signed by
LUCYGRACE CO-OP. SOCIETY AND RECOVERY OFFICER,
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.02.12
10:42:56 -
R/O: H.NO.460, BASAVAKRUPA,
0800
BESIDE SECAB PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KEERTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586 109.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEAR RAJENDRA GUNJ CIRCLE,
RAICHUR-584 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 09.11.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
MFA No. 200019 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.11.2019 IN
MVC.NO.528/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR, MAY
KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, 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
respondent No.2.
02. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC.No.528/2018 by learned the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Raichur dated 21.11.2019, the petitioner
is before this Court seeking enhancement of the
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
03. The factual matrix of the case is that on
19.03.2018 the petitioner while proceeding on his
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-36-EN-1390, a Maruti
Baleno Car bearing Reg.No.KA-28-P-5638 came from the
opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of
the petitioner. The petitioner had sustained injuries. He
was shifted to the hospital wherein his right foot was
amputated. It has resulted in a permanent partial
disability and has affected his future earning. He claimed
that he was an agriculturist and driver and he used to earn
Rs.20,000/- per month. Now, he cannot perform those
duties. As such, he is entitled for the compensation.
04. The respondent No.2 - insurance company
resisted the petition contending that the compensation
claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. It
denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner.
Inter-alia it also contended that terms and conditions of
the policy were violated by the owner and driver of the
car. Therefore, the petition be dismissed as against it.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
05. The Tribunal framed the appropriate issues and
the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to 13
were marked in the evidence. The official of the
respondent No.2 - insurance company examined as RW.1
and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked in the evidence.
06. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation under different heads as below:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.32,225/-
Food, nourishment and
3. Rs.20,000/-
conveyance
4. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/-
5. Loss of income during laid up Rs.24,000/-
period
6. Loss of future earnings Rs.7,68,000/-
Total Rs.9,34,225/-
Rounded of Rs.9,34,300/-
07. Being aggrieved by the said quantum of the
compensation, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal.
08. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has suffered amputation of the foot of
the right lower limb. As such, he cannot do his duty as a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
driver of the tractor and trailer. Therefore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. He
submits that there being amputation, the opinion of the
medical board being 50% physical disability, the Tribunal
should have considered loss of future prospects also.
Therefore, the impugned judgment is a unsustainable in
law. He also submits that the compensation awarded
under the remaining heads is also on the lower side.
Therefore, a reassessment be made.
09. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the insurance company submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct and no
enhancement is required.
10. The fact that the petitioner had sustained the
injury in the road traffic accident involving the car owned
by the respondent No.1 insured by respondent No.2 is not
in dispute. The liability fastened upon the respondent No.2
is not questioned before this Court. Therefore, it has
become final. It is pertinent to note that the medical board
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
examined the petitioner. It came to the conclusion as per
Ex.P.13 that there is a physical disability of 50% to the
whole body. The medical board of the RIMS Hospital has
opined the same. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt
that there is a physical disability of 50%. The photographs
produced at Ex.P.10 also show that there is amputation of
the foot. It definitely contributes to the functional disability
of the petitioner to work as a driver of the tractor and
trailer. There cannot be any doubt that petitioner has to
suffer disability for the rest of his life. There cannot be any
reduction of such disability in future. In the light of the
same, the Tribunal should have added future prospects
also to the income. The functional disability at 50%
appears to be correct. Therefore, the same is considered
as functional disability.
11. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a
notional income of Rs.11,750/- per month for the year
2018. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in
general conformity with the wages fixed under the
Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable.
Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered
at Rs.11,750/- per month, by adding 40% to the same
which is Rs.4,700/-, the effective multiplicand would be
Rs.16,450/-. Hence, the loss of future income is calculated
as Rs.16,450 x 12 x 16 x 50% = Rs.15,79,200/-.
12. Consequently, the loss of income during the laid
up period is calculated for a period of 4 months i.e.,
Rs.11,750/- x 4 = Rs.47,000/-.
13. The compensation awarded under the head of
pain and suffering needs to be enhanced. Therefore, the
same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
14. The petitioner has lost his right foot and he has
to live with the same for the rest of his life. Therefore,
instead of Rs.25,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded
to the petitioner under the head of loss of amenities in life.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
15. Consequently, the compensation awarded under
the remaining heads do not require any interference.
16. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total
enhanced compensation of Rs.9,09,225/- under the
following heads :-
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded
No. by this Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.32,225/-
Food, nourishment Rs.20,000/-
3.
and conveyance
4. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/-
5. Loss of income during Rs.47,000/-
laid up period
6. Loss of future Rs.15,79,200/-
earnings
7. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.18,43,425/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.9,34,200/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.9,09,225/-
17. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:925
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
II. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,09,225/-
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
