Karnataka High Court
Sharnappa S/O Yankanna Madiwal vs Mallappa And Anr on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
MFA No. 202155 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202155 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHARNAPPA S/O YANKANNA MADIWAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
R/O BATAGERA (B), TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLAPPA S/O MASTAPPA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE
AUTO NO.KA-32/B-1978,
Digitally
R/O BASAVANAGAR SEDAM, TQ. SEDAM,
signed by
LUCYGRACE DIST. KALABURAGI-585 101.
LUCYGRACE Date:
2025.02.14
11:19:02 -
0800
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. R.T.O. OFFICE, KALABURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 17.10.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
MFA No. 202155 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2019
PASSED IN MVC.NO.976/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT AT SEDAM AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
FROM Rs.5,72,800/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO Rs.20,00,000/-
WITH 12% INTEREST.
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
respondent.
02. Though, this appeal is slated for admission, with
consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter
is taken up for disposal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
03. The short point that is canvassed before this
Court is in respect of the quantum of compensation arrived
and the disability assessed by the Tribunal.
04. The factual matrix of the case is that on
18.09.2016 at 7:20 p.m. the petitioner suffered a motor
vehicle accident involving the auto-rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-32-B-1978 which was insured by the
respondent No.2 - insurance company. This aspect is not
in dispute.
05. The petitioner claimed that he was working as a
labourer under a contractor and getting wages of
Rs.10,000/- per month, but he failed to prove such
income. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the notional
income at Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner had
suffered fracture of the shaft of left femur, resulting in
shortening of the leg by 3 centimeters. It was also stated
that there is malunion of the fractured bone. The a copy of
the deposition of PW.2 is made available by the learned
counsel for the appellant. The wound certificate is also
made available.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
06. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the tune of Rs.5,72,800/- is inadequate. It is
submitted that the Tribunal should have considered the
income of the petitioner on the higher side. The disability
stated by PW.2 at 80% to the left lower limb, resulting in
whole body physical disability to the extent of 40% is not
properly assessed by it.
07. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2 - insurance company submits that the
Tribunal has rightly considered the functional disability at
22%. The income of the petitioner considered notionally at
Rs.7,000/- per month need not be interfered with.
Therefore, he defends the impugned judgment.
08. The Tribunal nowhere in the impugned judgment
has described the nature of the injuries suffered by the
petitioner to demonstrate how it arrived at the functional
disability of 22%. In Para Nos.15 and 16, the Tribunal
simply considered the testimony of PW.2 without referring
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
to the nature of the injuries. Therefore, it is necessary for
this Court to find out as to what is the functional disability
of the petitioner. In the light of the physical disability
stated by the doctor and the wound certificate issued by
the hospital, the petitioner being a labourer under a
contractor is involved in the manual work. The fracture of
the left femur resulting in shortening of the leg by 3
centimeters, resulting in limping, definitely reduce his
efficiency and the earning capacity. It is obvious that
shortening of the leg by 3 centimeters would result in gait.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the disability
stated by PW.2 to the extent of 42 to 45% would result in
functional disability of about the 25%. The petitioner has
not produced any material to show his income. Therefore,
the notional income has to be considered.
09. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribed a
notional income of Rs.8,750/- per month for the year
2016. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
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.8,750/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 15 x 25% =
Rs.3,93,750/- by adopting a multiplier of 15 for the age of
40 years.
10. Consequently, the compensation under the
head of loss of income during laid up period has to be
enhanced to Rs.26,250/-, treating such laid up period as
03 months.
11. The petitioner was impatient for 17 days.
Therefore, the compensation under the head of attendance
charges, food and conveyance expenses needs to be
enhanced at Rs.15,000/-
12. The fact that the petitioner to bear with limping
for the rest of his life cannot be ignored. Hence, the
compensation under the head of loss of amenities is
enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
13. The petitioner is also entitled for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses for
the purpose of removal of the implants which will not carry
any interest.
14. The Tribunal has awarded just and proper
compensation under the head of pain and suffering and
medical expenditure. There is no need to interfere with the
same.
15. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,80,300/- under the
following heads :-
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded by
No. this Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Attendant charges, food Rs.15,000/-
and conveyance
charges
3. Loss of future income Rs.3,93,750/-
4. Medical expenditure Rs.2,13,100/-
5. Loss of income during Rs.26,250/-
laid up period
6. Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/-
7. Future medical Rs.25,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.7,53,100/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.5,72,800/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.1,80,300/-
16. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:992
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
II. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,80,300/-
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
appointment, deposit etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KJJ/SBS
CT: AK
