Karnataka High Court
Devendrappa vs Venkatesh G And Anr on 5 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
MFA No. 200739 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200739 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DEVENDRAPPA S/O SHANKRAPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, & COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O KEB COLONY, KURNOOL ROAD,
YERGERA VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKATESH G. S/O GUNDAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-36/TB-8536,
R/O DEVANAPALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed
by
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584 106.
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
SHIVALEELA UDAGI
DATTATRAYA Location: HIGH
UDAGI COURT OF
KARNATAKA
Date:
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2025.03.19
12:03:27 -0700 1ST FLOOR, V.V.SUKHANI COMPLEX,
LINGASUGUR ROAD,
NEAR GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR-584 101,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 30.11.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 06.09.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, IN FILE BEARING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
MFA No. 200739 of 2018
M.V.C.NO.200/2014 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY ENHANCING
THE COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL 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)
Being aggrieved by the common judgment in MVC
No.200/2014 dated 06.09.2017 by the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, the petitioner therein
is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on
21.09.2013 the petitioner along with the other petitioner
in connected matter were proceeding in an auto rickshaw
from their village Yergera to Kasbe Camp for coolie work
and the auto rickshaw driver drove the same and after
crossing Nallabanda cross, a tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-
36/TB-8536 came from behind and dashed to auto
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
rickshaw, resulting in accident. The petitioner contends
that he had suffered fracture of both bones of right leg,
tibia, fibula and other minor injuries; approached the
Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner and insurer
of the tractor-trailer unit. The petitioner claimed that he
was coolie, aged about 60 years, has suffered permanent
disability, and sought adequate compensation from the
owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer unit (hereinafter
referred to as 'T.T. unit').
3. On being served with the notice, the respondent
No.1 did not appear and as such was placed exparte.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and
resisted the claim petition by filing the written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 contended that the driver
of the T.T. unit was on the proper side and there was no
negligence on his part in causing the accident and also
that the terms and conditions of the policy have been
violated by the owner and driver of the T.T.unit. It was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
further contended that the negligence was on the part of
the auto rickshaw driver and therefore respondent No.2 be
absolved from paying any compensation.
5. On the basis of above contentions, the Tribunal
framed the appropriate issues. The petitioner herein was
examined as PW.2 and the Doctor who assessed the
disability was examined as PW3. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.160 were
marked. The respondent got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 but
no oral evidence was led. After hearing both the parties,
the Tribunal has awarded compensation of `1,43,343/-
under the following heads :
1. Towards pain and sufferings `50,000/-
2. Loss of future earning `43,200/-
3. For medical expenses based on `20,143/-
medical bills and evidence
4. Towards attendance charge and special `30,000/-
food and diet and also transportation
charges
Total `1,43,343/-
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
7. The submissions by learned counsel appearing
for appellant and learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 were heard.
8. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/
petitioner would contend that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it failed to assess
the disability properly and also that the notional income
considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is
pointed out that the compensation under the head 'loss of
amenities in life' and 'loss of income during laid-up period'
were not awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 would submit that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and there is no need
for enhancement of compensation.
10. The fact that there was an accident involving
the auto rickshaw in which the petitioner was traveling and
T.T. unit owned and insured by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
not in dispute. The Tribunal has found that the charge-
sheet having been laid against the driver of the tractor-
trailer unit, the actionable negligence was on the part of
the tractor driver. Therefore, it is only the quantum of
compensation which is urged before this Court and the
same has to be reassessed by this Court.
11. The petitioner herein had suffered fracture of
both the bones of right leg and he was aged about 60
years. The records reveal that petitioner had suffered
fracture of tibia, fibula and the injury over the left leg,
ankle joint, head, hands etc. He was shifted to Navodaya
Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Raichur
where he underwent surgery like CRIF with 'K' wire for
tibial fractures; ORIF was done for fibula fracture and he
was inpatient from 21.09.2013 to 25.10.2013 i.e., 35
days.
12. PW.3 in his ocular evidence as well as the
disability certificate produced at Ex.P.102, states that the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
petitioner is walking with antalgic gait and ankle joint has
restriction of the movements and therefore he opines that
there is a disability of 16.9%.
13. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and
the disability stated by PW.3, the Tribunal held that the
functional disability of the petitioner who is aged about 60
years is 8%. This Court do not find any reason to interfere
with the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal.
14. So far as the income of petitioner is concerned,
he did not produce any documentary evidence to show the
income. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted the notional
income and held the same to be at `5,000/- per month. It
is relevant to note that the guidelines issued by KSLSA for
the purpose of settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalat
prescribed notional income of `7,000/- per month for the
year 2013. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court
has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in
general conformity with the wages fixed under the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, adopting the notional
income of `7,000/- per month, the loss of future income is
calculated as `7,000/-x12x8%x9=60,480/- by adopting
the multiplier of '9' for the age of 60 years. Consequently,
the compensation under the head loss of income during
laid-up period is calculated as `7,000/- x 3 = 21,000/-.
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `30,000/-
towards attendant charges, special food and diet,
conveyance etc. Considering the fact that the petitioner
was inpatient for 35 days, the same was enhanced to
`40,000/-.
16. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life.
Considering the fact that petitioner is aged about 60 years
and he has cope-up with antalgic gait for his rest of his life
and also considering that the pain and agony of an injury
to the ankle and the fractures to both bones of the right
leg would cause severe discomfort to him, it would be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
appropriate to award a sum of `50,000/- under the head
'loss of amenities in life'.
17. The compensation under the remaining heads
does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore
the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of
`2,41,623/- under the following heads :-
1. Towards pain and sufferings `50,000/-
2. Loss of future earning `60,480/-
3. For medical expenses based on medical `20,143/-
bills and evidence
4. Towards attendance charge and special `40,000/-
food and diet and also transportation
charges
5. Loss of income during laid up period `21,000/-
6. Loss of amenities in life `50,000/-
Total `2,41,623/-
Less : awarded by the Tribunal `1,43,343/-
Enhancement `98,280/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of `98,280/- with interest.
18. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in
part. Hence, the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1461
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 `98,280/- 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) The 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) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal
remains unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SN
CT: AK
