Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Kantappa Hanjagi vs The Divisional Controller on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
MFA No. 201639 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201639 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA S/O KANTAPPA HANJAGI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE,
R/O TORAVI, TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, BELAGAVI-590 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
LUCYGRACE (BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY
SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.03.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO-VII AT VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.1918/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
MFA No. 201639 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 28.03.2019 passed in MVC No.1918/2016 by the
II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VII, Vijayapura,
the petitioner is before this Court in appeal, seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
3. The petitioner had sustained closed
comminuted fracture of the clavicle in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 30.08.2016, while he was
travelling in the bus belonging to the respondent. He took
treatment by admitting himself to the hospital for a period
of seven days. The petitioner contended that he had
suffered permanent disability on account of the fracture of
clavicle and therefore, he being aged 32 years is entitled
for the compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
4. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence
available on record and in the light of the submissions
made by the respondent, came to the conclusion that the
petitioner is entered for a sum of 1,92,900/- under the
following heads:
Injury, pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.74,100/-
Loss of income due to permanent Rs.28,800/-
physical disability
Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/-
Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
Loss of amenities and future Rs.20,000/-
unhappiness
Total Rs.1,92,900/-
5. The fact that there was an accident involving
the bus belonging to the respondent and that the
petitioner was a passenger in the said bus is not in
dispute. The only grievance urged before this Court is
about the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner submits that the appellant being aged
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
32 years and agriculturist had suffered the comminuted
fracture of the clavicle and it has resulted in disability of
10 to 15% as stated by PW.3, who assessed the disability.
He had stated that implants were there and they have to
be removed. It is further submitted that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the remaining heads is also
on the lower side and therefore, there is a need for
reassessment of the compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation submits that the Tribunal has awarded
adequate compensation and there is no need for
enhancement of the compensation on any of the heads.
However, she admits that the Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation under the head of loss of income during
laid up period.
8. A careful perusal of the Tribunal records would
show that the PW.4 who was from the same hospital
where the petitioner was treated states that the fracture
was treated by ORIF with implants. In support of which
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
the case sheet is produced at Ex.P.23. He further submits
in his affidavit as well as in the cross-examination that
there is a disability of 10% to 15% to the limb and there is
a need for removal of the implants also. The disability
certificate at Ex.P.24 show about the same and the say of
PW.4 cannot be brushed aside. Hence, he being a doctor
who had treated the petitioner, has to be appreciated and
as such the functional disability of the petitioner is
assessed at 5%.
9. In the absence of any evidence to show the
income of the petitioner, the Tribunal has adopted the
notional income for the year 2015 at Rs.5,000/- by
adopting the multiplier at 16.
10. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a
notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month for the year
2015. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has
held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in
general conformity with the wages fixed under the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable.
Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered
at Rs.8,000/-. Therefore the loss of future income is
calculated as Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 16 x 5% = Rs.76,800/- by
taking a multiplier of 16 for the age of 32 years.
11. Consequently, the petitioner is also entitled for
the compensation under the head of the loss of income
during the laid up period, which is construed to be three
months. Therefore, Rs.8,000/- x 3 = Rs.24,000/- is
awarded to him.
12. The compensation under the head of pain and
suffering is on the lower side. Therefore, the same is
enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
13. The petitioner need removal of the implant.
Therefore, there shall be some future medical expenses of
Rs.20,000/-, which shall not carry any interest.
14. The compensation under the head of loss of
amenities in life is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the heads of medical expenses, food and
nourishment, attendant charges and conveyance charges
do not need any enhancement.
16. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the
modified compensation under different heads as below:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded by this
Court
1. Loss of future income Rs.76,800/-
2. Loss of income during laid Rs.24,000/-
up period
3. Medical expenses Rs.74,100/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
4. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of amenities in life Rs.30,000/-
6. Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/-
7. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
8. Conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.3,04,900/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.1,92,900/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.1,12,000/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- with interest.
17. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1327
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
II. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,12,000/-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 excluding the
interest for a) the delayed period of 291 days in filing
the appeal and b) the compensation towards future
medical expenses.
III. The respondent is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within a period of six weeks
from the date of this order.
IV. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding
deposit etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG,KJJ
