Bahubali S/O. Suresh Wadral Vs Shrishailappa Murigeppa Kori

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI M.F.A. NO.100916 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BAHUBALI S/O. SURESH WADRAL, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COOLIE, PRESENTLY NIL, R/O. SHIRAHATTI, K.D. VILLAGE, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SHRISHAILAPPA MURIGEPPA KORI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 973, NEHRU ROAD, BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR.

¶12

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BIJAPUR, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.

¶14

(BY SRI. R. S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2013 IN MVC NO.199/2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT BELGAUM AT: BELGAUM IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,01,000/- BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO RS.10,00,000/- WITH 9% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.10.2025, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CAV JUDGMENT

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶22

This is the case wherein the Claimant Sri Bahubali maintained a petitioner under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 10.11.2012 at 4.00 pm on HukkeriGhataprabha Road, within the limits of Jagatihal Village in Hukkeri Taluk.

¶23

After contest, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,01,000/- to the Claimant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶24

The respondents herein are the owner and the Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing No.KA-28-B5744. The Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurer as on the date of the accident and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as determined by it. The respondents have not challenged the impugned award.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

The Claimant has come up with this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that the Tribunal has not properly considered his income and percentage of disability for the purpose of determining loss of future income and that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of future medical expenses. He has also contended that the Tribunal has not considered his prayer for incidental expenses during the period of treatment and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities is on lower side.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurer supported the findings recorded by trial Court and submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the Claimant by taking into consideration all relevant factors such as the nature of injuries, period of treatment, the evidence placed on record regarding alleged permanent disability and as such impugned award does not need interference at the hands of this Court.

¶29

Perusal of the impugned award goes to show that

¶30

based on the evidence adduced before it the Tribunal has

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

determined age of the Claimant as 25 years at the time of the accident and adopted multiplier of 18 for the purpose of determining loss of future income. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Claimant that he was an agricultural coolie and took his monthly income as Rs.5,000/- in place of Rs.9,000/claimed by the Claimant. The Tribunal observed that the Claimant had suffered fracture of comminuted fracture of left clavicle and fracture of upper end of left humerus apart from other few simple injuries and that the Claimant has undergone treatment as an inpatient from 10.11.2012 to 25.11.2012. Thus, having regard to all these aspects, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,01,000/- to the Claimant under the following heads:

¶35

Sl.No.	Head	Amount in Rs.
1.	Pain and sufferings	20,000/-
2.	Medical and other incidental expenses	17,000/-
3.	Loss of future earnings due to disability	54,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities in life	10,000/-
	Total	1,01,000/-

¶36

The first and foremost grievance of the Claimant is

¶37

that the Tribunal ought to have taken his income at Rs.9,000/per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is the definite

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

case of the Claimant that he was earning as an agricultural coolie. Admittedly, he has not produced any material before the Tribunal to prove his actual income at the relevant point of time. As such it was required for the Tribunal to assume the income of the Claimant notionally and accordingly the Tribunal assumed the income of the Claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the Claimant has drawn the attention of the Court to the chart of HCLSC, Dharwad pertaining to notational income, prepared in connection with conduct of Lok-Adalath. Under the said chart, the notional income for the year 2012 is shown as 6,500/-. In view of the same, this Court opines that it would be proper to assume notional income of the Claimant as Rs.6,500/- per month.

¶41

It is contended the doctor has assessed permanent disability in the Claimant in respect of his left shoulder joint at 35% and having regard to his avocation the Tribunal ought to have considered his disability at 25% for the purpose of determination of loss of future income. No doubt, the avocation of the Claimant is considered as an agriculturist coolie and he has to do hard labour. However, the material question would be

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

whether the disability in respect of left shoulder joint in the complaint has got bearing on his future earning capacity and to what an extent. Admittedly, PW-2, who assessed the disability in the Claimant, was not a doctor who treated the Claimant. Further, the materials on record indicate that the Claimant had been treated with clavicle strapping and shoulder strapping for the fractures, which was a conservative treatment. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the Claimant as to need of assuming loss of earning capacity at 25 % as contended by the Claimant.

¶45

The Tribunal has taken permanent physical disability in the Claimant for his whole body as 5 %. Normally, 1/3^rd of permanent disability to a particular part would be taken as percentage of permanent physical disability to whole body. As such this Court opines that based on the percentage of permanent disability given by PW-2, it would be proper to assume that the Claimant has got permanent physical disability of 10% to whole body. Thus, the total loss of future income of the Claimant works out to Rs.1,40,400/(Rs.6,500x12x18x10%).

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The materials on record indicate that the Claimant has undergone treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident as an inpatient from 10.11.2012 to 25.11.2012. He has produced bills before the Tribunal to show that he has incurred a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- under the head of medical expenses and incidental charges. The Claimant has contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to him even under the head of future medical expenses. However, he has not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal to support this contention. In view of the same, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the Claimant, the period of treatment as an inpatient and probable amount incurred to meet incidental expenses, this Court opines holds that it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.22,000/- to the Claimant under the head of medical expenses and incidental charges in place of Rs.17,000/-awarded by the Tribunal.

¶49

The case papers go to show that the Claimant had suffered two factures and few other simple injuries which were simple in nature. As such this Court opines that it would be

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the Claimant under the head of pain and sufferings. This Court does not find force in the contention of the Claimant for enhancement of the compensation under the head of loss of amenities.

¶53

The impugned award goes to show that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the Claimant under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment. Taking into consideration the period of treatment and probable time required for healing up, this Court opines that it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.13,000/- (Rs.6,500x2) to the Claimant under the head of loss of income during laid up period.

¶54

For the foregoing reasons this Court holds that the Claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,15,400/- in place of Rs.1,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, under the following heads:

¶55

Sl.No.	Head	Amount in Rs.
1	Pain and Sufferings	30,000
2	Medical expenses and incidental expenses	22,000
3	Loss of income during the period of treatment	13,000
4	Loss of Future Income	1,40,400
5	Loss of Amenities	10,000
	Total	2,15,400

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16061 MFA No. 100916 of 2014

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶59

following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

ii) The judgment and award dated 30.09.2013 passed in MVC No.199/2013 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi is modified.

¶63

iii) Consequently, it is held that the Appellant/Claimant is entitled for compensation of ₹2,15,400/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred) Only in place of Rs.1,01,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶64