Karnataka High Court
Pawan vs Sri.Subhas And Anr on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:46
MFA No. 201481 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201481 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
PAWAN S/O BASAVARAJ BARAGAL,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: WORKING IN KPR FACTORY,
R/O ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI,
NOW RESIDING AT S.R. COLONY JALANAGAR,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SUBHAS S/O DATTATREYA MANAKAR,
Digitally signed AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
by R/O ALMEL, TQ. SISNDAGI,
LUCYGRACE DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
Location: HIGH (OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-28/TA-7672
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TRAILER NOS.KA-28/TB-2813 & 2814)
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL,
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
UNIT 401, 4TH FLOOR, SANGAM COMPLEX,
127 EAST MUMBAI-4000593, MAHARASTRA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 10.06.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:46
MFA No. 201481 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XIII, VIJAYAPURA, AT
VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.317/2013 DATED 16.03.2018 AND BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE
RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT.
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)
By the consent of learned counsel appearing for both
the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal
though it is listed for Admission.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award in MVC No.317/2013 passed by learned Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XIII, Vijayapura, dated
16.03.2018.
2. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:46
awarded a sum of Rs.3,22,000/- as compensation and
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner
is before this Court seeking enhancement contending that
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
erroneous and the disability has not been properly
appreciated by the Tribunal.
3. The fact that the appellant had met with an
accident involving the tractor bearing No.KA-28-TA-7672
and trailer bearing No.KA-28-TB-2813 & 2814 is not in
dispute. The liability of the insurance company to pay the
compensation is also not in dispute.
4. The appellant had sustained fracture of tibia
and fibula and two toes as may be seen from the medical
records at Exs.P11, P12 and the case sheet at Ex.P18.
PW.2 had examined the disability and issued the disability
certificate as per Ex.P19, wherein he had assessed the
disability of the left lower limb at 30%. The Tribunal after
detail discussion came to the conclusion that the functional
NC: 2025:KHC-K:46
disability of the appellant is 10%. The evidence shows that
the appellant though contended that he was working in a
factory, had not led any evidence in that regard and
consequently, notional income was assessed by the
Tribunal. Evidently, the oral testimony of the appellant
that he was a manual labourer in the factory remains even
though his employment in the factory is not proved. In
other words, the appellant is a coolie involved in manual
labour. In that view of the matter, the functional disability
of the appellant assessed by the Tribunal at 10% appears
to be on the lower side. Legs and their functionality are
very much involved in manual labour and therefore, this
Court holds that it would be proper to assess the
functional disability of the appellant at 12%.
5. Sofar as the income of the appellant is
concerned, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs.6,000/-
per month. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority in respect of the settlement of the
claims arising out of the motor vehicle accidents before
NC: 2025:KHC-K:46
the Lok Adalath prescribes the notional income for the
year 2012 at Rs.6,500/- p.m. In umpteen number of
cases, this Court has held that the said guidelines issued
by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages
fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the
notional income of the appellant is held to be Rs.6,500/-
per month.
6. The Tribunal has considered the Multiplier of 18
based on the age of the injured as 24 years. Therefore,
the said multiplier appears to be correct and there is no
dispute in respect of the multiplier.
7. Therefore, the loss of future earnings of the
appellant is calculated as: Rs.6,500 x 12 x 18 x 12% =
Rs.1,68,480/-. Consequently, the appellant is also entitled
for a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of loss of income
during the laid up period.
8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities, which appears to be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:46
on the lower side and therefore a sum of Rs.30,000/- is
awarded under this head.
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the remaining heads does not call for any
interference by this Court. Hence, the appellant is entitled
for the modified compensation under different heads as
below:
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Food and nourishment, conveyance Rs.09,000/-
and attendant charges
Medical expenses Rs.1,13,000/-
Loss of income during the laid up Rs.19,500/-
period
Loss of future earnings Rs.1,68,480/-
Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.3,89,980/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs.3,22,000/-
Enhancement Rs.67,980/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.67,980/- with interest and therefore,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:46
the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of
Rs.67,980/- in addition to what has been awarded by the
Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization.
(iii) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within
a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) The other conditions in respect of the deposit,
etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG
