[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmi Devi K W/O Late K Dharmappa vs G M Prajwal S/O G M Mallikarjuona Reddy on 2 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
MFA No. 100445 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100445 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI K.
W/O LATE K. DHARMAPPA,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. D.NO.LIG-421, KHB COLONY,
BALLARI-583 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.M. PRAJWAL S/O G.M. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RIDER CUM OWNER OF THE BAJAJ MOTORCYCLE
BEARING REG. NO.KA-34/EH-9090,
R/O. MATRU KRUPA BESIDE SRI. GSR TOWER,
PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
GSR TOWER, TS.NO.12/2A/146
A AND B OPPOSITE, PETROL BUNK,
Digitally
signed by V N
BADIGER
Location:
VN
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
BADIGER DHARWAD
MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR,
BENCH
Date:
2026.02.03
BALLARI-583 101.
14:31:08
+0530
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.1062/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, AT BALLARI, BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION RS.14,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
MFA No. 100445 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
1. The Claimant in MVC No. 1062/2018 on the file
of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari,
has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award
dated 23.02.2021 passed therein.
2. The learned Tribunal has awarded a total
compensation of ₹4,01,485/- to the Claimant along with
interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till
realization, under the following heads:
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rs.
01 Pain and Suffering 40,000
02 Medical Expenses, surgery and 1,65,685
treatment
03 Food, nourishment, conveyance 20,000
and attendant charges
04 Loss of Income during period of 27,000
hospitalization and treatment
05 Loss of amentiies 10,000
06 Loss of future income 1,18,800
07 Future medical expenses 20,000
Total: 4,01,485
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that
the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation in the case.
It is submitted that the Tribunal has taken the monthly
income of the Claimant as ₹9,000/- per month instead of
₹11,750/- per month, as reflected in the notional income
chart prepared by the High Court Legal Services Committee,
Dharwad, for the purpose of Lok Adalat. It is further
submitted that the Tribunal has taken permanent physical
disability of the Claimant only as 10% despite the Claimant
having adduced medical evidence to show that she has
suffered 36% permanent disability to the whole body.
Learned Counsel for Claimant has also submitted that The
Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation under the
heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future
medical expenses.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri M. Y. Katagi,
appearing for Respondent No. 2, supported the findings
recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that the claimant
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
has failed to make out any valid ground for interference
with the impugned judgment and award.
5. The Claimant has filed the claim petition in MVC
No. 1062/2018 seeking compensation for the injuries
sustained by her in a road traffic accident occurred on
05.07.2018 due to actionable negligence on the part of the
rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-34-EH-9090,
which was insured with Respondent No.2. The Tribunal has
held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and held
that Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the said vehicle,
liable to indemnify the insured in paying the compensation
amount. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard has not
been challenged either by Respondent No. 1 or Respondent
No. 2.
6. It is the case of the Claimant that on account of
the injuries sustained in the accident, she had suffered
communited fracture of both bones of left leg and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
communited fracture of right acetabullum and that due to
said injuries she has suffered loss of future earning
capacity. It is further case of the Claimant that she was
aged 55 years at the time of the accident and she was
earning sum of Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. as a progressive
agriculturist. The Tribunal, while assessing loss of future
income of the Claimant, concluded that she has got 10% of
permanent disability on account of injuries sustained in the
accident and calculated her loss of future income by taking
her income as Rs.9,000/- per month and applying multiplier
of 11.
7. Admittedly, the Claimant has not produced any
documentary evidence before the Tribunal to prove her
actual income at the relevant point of time. Whereas, The
Tribunal considering the age and avocation of the Claimant,
notionally assessed her income as Rs.9,000/- per month by
taking her capacity to earn as Rs.300/- per day. It is also
not in dispute that HCLSC, Dharwad has prepared a chart
regarding notional income, for the purpose of Lok-Adalath,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
wherein the notional monthly income of a person is shown
as Rs.11,750/- during the year 2018. If the said mention is
taken note of, then it is to be held that the notional income
of the Claimant taken by the The Tribunal is on the lower
side.
8. With regard to age of the Claimant, the Tribunal
has relied on the contents of wound certificate marked at
Ex.P5 to hold that she was aged 55 years at the time of the
accident. However, as per the discharge summary and other
medical records available on record, the Claimant was aged
61 years at the relevant point of time. Hence, this Court
holds that The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the
materials available on record to conclude the age of
Claimant for the purpose of applying correct multiplier.
Thus, based on the materials available on record this Court
holds that the Claimant was aged between 61 to 65 years at
the relevant point of time and proper multiplier was 7
instead of 11 applied by the Tribunal.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
9. PW-2 Dr. M. J. Shashidhar Reddy, in his evidence
has stated that because of restriction in left knee and ankle
as well as wasting of calf muscle, the Claimant has got
certain disabilities and opined that on account of the same,
she has got permanent partial disability of 36% to the
whole body. It is to be noted that PW-2 has not stated
anything about percentage of loss of future earning capacity
in the Claimant. Further, even according to PW-2, the
Claimant has difficulty in walking, climbing stairs, squatting,
using Indian toilet etc and the disability given by him was
partial disability. As such, this Court opines that it would be
proper to take one-third thereof, i.e., 12%, as functional
disability or loss of future earning capacity suffered by the
Claimant due to injuries sustained in the accident. In that
event, the loss of future income suffered by the Claimant
would be Rs.1,18,440/- (₹11,750 × 12 × 7 × 12%).
10. PW-2 has further deposed that the Claimant
requires approximately ₹30,000/- for her further treatment
i.e. removal of implants. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
₹20,000/- under this head. This Court does not find any
justification in the Tribunal having awarded lesser amount
under this head ignoring the statement of PW-2, who is an
Orthopaedic Surgeon. Hence, this Court holds that the
Claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the
head of future medical expenses in place of Rs.20,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Similarly, this Court finds that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and
suffering and loss of amenities is inadequate. Hence, the
compensation under these heads is enhanced to ₹50,000/-
and ₹30,000/- respectively.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹27,000/- to
the Claimant towards loss of income during the period of
treatment. As already pointed out, the Tribunal has arrived
at the said figure by taking notional income as ₹9,000/- per
month. Since this Court has assessed the notional income at
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
₹11,750/-, the loss of income during the treatment period is
enhanced to ₹35,250/- (Rs.11,750/- X 3).
13. In the absence of supporting documentary
evidence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the
head of medical expenses and incidental charges.
14. Hence, it is held that the Claimant is entitled for
total compensation of Rs.4,49,375/- under the following
heads:
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rs.
01 Pain and Suffering 50,000
02 Medical Expenses, surgery and 1,65,685
treatment
03 Food, nourishment, conveyance 20,000
and attendant charges
04 Loss of Income during period of 35,250
hospitalization and treatment
05 Loss of amentiies 30,000
06 Loss of future income 1,18,440
07 Future medical expenses 30,000
Total: 4,49,375
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
15. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The Claimant is entitled for total
compensation of ₹4,49,375/- in place of
₹4,01,485/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii. The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
iv. Respondent No. 2 shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount before the Tribunal
within a period of three months from this
day.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1378
HC-KAR
v. The Claimant is entitled to withdraw the
enhanced compensation amount on its
deposit.
vi. Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
VB
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38
