Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Kashinath Panchal vs A. Hakeem S/O Karimsab And Anr on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
MFA No. 201217 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201217 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O KASHINATH PANCHAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC. CARPENTER NOW NIL,
R/O UKRI VILLAGE, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. A. HAKEEM S/O KARIMSAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND
OWNER OF INDICA CAR KA.56-M-0179,
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
R/O DHARAMPET, MANTHAL,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
Location: HIGH DIST. BIDAR-585 401.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
DR. RAJSHEKHAR PATIL BUILDING,
10-2/7, P.B. NO. 12,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 09.12.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
MFA No. 201217 of 2021
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BIDAR SITTING AT
BASAVAKALYAN, IN M.V.C. NO. 528/2018, BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION.
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)
1. Though the matter is slated for admission, by
consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal and heard the learned counsel for both the
parties.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in
MVC No.528/2018 dated 31.12.2019 by learned II-
Additional Dist. & Sessions Court & Addl. MACT, Bidar,
sitting at Basavakalyan, the petitioner is before this Court
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
in appeal assailing the quantum of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on
23.05.2018 the petitioner was traveling in the car bearing
Reg.No.KA-56/M-0179 and the driver of the car dashed
against the roadside stone and the petitioner suffered
fracture of right femur and other minor injuries. He was
admitted to Vishwankar Hospital for about 7 days where
he was underwent surgery of ORIF (open reduction
internal fixation) and has spent huge amount. He was also
contended that he was a Carpenter earning `1000/- per
day and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered
permanent disability and as such, he is entitled for
compensation from the owner and insurer of the car.
4. The respondent No.2 alone appeared before the
Tribunal and resisted the claim petition, contending that
there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of
the car and that there were violations of terms and
conditions of the policy. It was also alleged that the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
petitioner had connived with the owner of the vehicle in
order to make unlawful gain and therefore the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the
petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1
to P15. The Doctor who assessed the disability of the
petitioner was examined as PW.2. No evidence was led in
by the respondents.
6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation under different heads as below:
Sl.No. Heads Compensation
1. Loss of future income Rs.2,57,040/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.67,225/-
3. Loss of earning during treatment Rs.18,000/-
4. pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
5. Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.3,67,265/-
Rounded off to Rs.3,67,000/-
7. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation amount, the petitioner is before this Court
in appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that the Tribunal has failed to assess the
disability of the petitioner in a proper way despite the
Doctor who had a treated the petitioner was examined as
PW2. The PW2 assessed the disability at 42% to the right
lower limb and the Tribunal has assessed the same at 14%
which is incorrect. He also contends that the notional
income adopted by the Tribunal is also on the lower side
and therefore there is a need for re-assessment of the
compensation amount.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 submit that the tribunal has rightly
assessed the disability at 14% and the notional income at
Rs.9,000/- and therefore there is no need for
enhancement of the compensation amount.
10. The perusal of the records would reveal that the
petitioner had suffered fracture of right femur and he was
treated by PW2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
11. The fact that there was an accident involving
the car owned by the respondent No.1 and insured by
respondent No.2 and there was negligence on the part of
the driver of the car is not in dispute similarly the age of
the petitioner is also not in dispute in this appeal.
12. In the words of PW2, there is a disability of
42% to the left right lower limb and the implants were in
situ when he examined the petitioner. It is the case of the
petitioner that he was a Carpenter and he had to move to
his workplace and impairment in the right leg would
definitely result in depleted efficiency and the income
thereof. In cases where there is impairment of the
movement of a person and when the limbs which fetch
income to such persons are affected, it is functional
disability which needs to be considered by the tribunal. In
a given case, the functional disability need not necessarily
be 1/3rd of the physical disability. The functional disability
is to be assessed by the tribunal in the light of the physical
disability stated by a medical practitioner, the avocation of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
the petitioner; and by assessing as to how the physical
disability would translate into the functional disability.
13. Applying the above tests, it is evident that the
functional disability of the petitioner need not be 1/3rd of
the physical disability. Petitioner being a labourer using
his limbs extensively for his movement, the functional
disability is assessed by this Court at 16%. This court also
notices that it is the upper limbs which are of great
importance for a Carpenter.
14. The petitioner has not produced any material to
show his income. As such the tribunal has adopted the
notional income. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-
Adalat are prescribe a notional income of Rs.11,750/- for
the year 2018. In umpteen number of judgments and also
in the case of Smt.Mariyamma V/s Suyambulingam in
MFA No.7404/2014, dated 06.12.2022, this Court has
held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in a
general conformity with the wages fixed under the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
minimum wages act. Therefore, the loss of future income
on account of disability is calculated as Rs.11,750/- X 12 X
17 X 16% = Rs.3,83,520/- by adopting a multiplier of 17
for the age of 30 years.
15. As a consequence, by holding that the
petitioner was unable to resume his work at least for a
period of 3 months, the compensation under the head of
loss of income during the laid up period is calculated as
Rs.11,750/- x 3 = Rs.35,250/-.
16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.67,225/-
towards Medical Expenses, as per the actual, which does
not require any indulgence.
17. The PW 2 has stated that the implants are in
situ and therefore a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded
towards the future medical expenses, which shall not carry
any interest.
18. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
under the head of pain and suffering and the same needs
to be enhanced Rs.30,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
19. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities in life, the same needs
to be enhanced Rs.30,000/-.
20. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded
under the head of conveyance, nourishment, attendant
charges etc. do not need any enhancement.
21. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for additional
compensation of Rs.2,08,995/- under the following
heads:-
Compensation
Sl.
Heads Awarded by
No.
this Court
1. Loss of future income Rs.3,83,520/-
2. Loss of income during Rs.35,250/-
treatment period
3. Medical Expenses Rs.67,225/-
4. Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000/-
5. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
7. Food, nourishment, Rs.10,000/-
conveyance and attendant
changes
Total Rs.5,75,995/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.3,67,000/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.2,08,995/-
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1414
22. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following;
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a
sum of Rs.2,08,995/- in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
along with interest at 6% p.a. out of
which shall not carry any interest from
the date of petition till its deposit.
(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount
within a period of six weeks from the date of
this order.
(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands
unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SDU,SMP
CT: AK
