Sri. Vittal Shetty v. Smt. Dhanisha M

NC:(2026:KHC:3125( MFA(No.(9486(of(2017( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(20 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(C(M(JOSHI( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(9486(OF(2017((MV-I)(

BETWEEN:((

(

SRI,VITTAL,SHETTY,, S/O,SHEENAPPA,SHETTY,, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS,,

R/O.,HOSA,MATA,,HILIYANA,VILLAGE,, UDUPI,TALUK,,UDUPI,DISTRICT-576,201., …APPELLANT,

(BY,SRI,S.M,ANFAL,FOR,SRI,K,PRASANNA,SHETTY,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

(

1., SMT.,DHANISHA,M,, W/O,ABHILASH,P,, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS,,

R/O,MANIKKOTH,HOUSE,, CHAMPAD,,THALASSERY,TALUK,, KANNUR,DISTRICT,,, Digitallytisigned KERALA,STATE-540,511.,by0NANDINI0R ,Location:0HIGH COURT0OF 2., UNITED,INDIA,INSURANCE,CO.,,LTD.,, KARNATAKA BRANCH,NAME,ASHEEQUE,TOWERS,, THALASSERY,,OPP:SYNDICATE,BANK,, KANNUR,,KERALA-540,511., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI,P.B,RAJU,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-2;, ,,,,,,R-1,SERVED,&,UNREPRESENTED), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT,AND,AWARD,DATED,05.07.2016,,PASSED,IN,MVC, NO.758/2014, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, &, MEMBER,,ADDITIONAL,MACT,,KUNDAPURA,,PARTLY,ALLOWING,

THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF 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

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.758/2014 dated 05.07.2016 by learned Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT Kundapura, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶2The fact that there was an accident on 9.5.2014 when the tempo traveler bearing No.KL.58.L.2709 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 hit against the petitioner while he was standing by the side of the road near studio of Goliyangadi of Hiliyana Village, Udupi Taluk causing injuries to him is not in dispute.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the

lower side. He contends that the petitioner had sustained fracture of distal humerus with bone loss with gross deformity of the left elbow and fracture of the left clavicle with deformity and other minor injuries. He contends that the Tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,500/- per month and held the disability at 18% though PW.2, Medical Officer had stated that there was a disability of 30%. Therefore, he seeks reassessment of the compensation awarded to the petitioner.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and the disability is properly assessed by the Tribunal. He submits that there is no need for any enhancement.

¶5A careful perusal of the wound certificate shows that the petitioner had sustained the above mentioned injuries. The fracture of the clavicle and the humerus definitely contribute to the physical disability of the petitioner. PW2 states that the disability to the left upper

limb is to the extent of 30%. The petitioner states that he was an agriculturist. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner assessed at 18% by the Tribunal is proper and no indulgence is required in the same.

¶6However, the Tribunal, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the income of the petitioner takes the notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month. The guidelines issued by KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalat prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,500/- for the year 2014. 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 Minimum Wages Act, and therefore, they are acceptable. Therefore, the loss of earnings on account of disability is assessed as: Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 9 x 18% =1,65,240/-.

¶7As a consequence, the loss of earnings during the laid up period for a period of five months is assessed at Rs.8,500/- x 5 =42,500/-.

¶8The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.72,130/- towards medical expenses, inclusive of conveyance and attendant charges. The medical expenses alone is to the tune of Rs.68,130/- and the same has to be awarded to him.

¶9Sofar as the conveyance, attendant charges nourishment etc. is concerned, it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-.

¶10The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities in life which needs to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶11The compensation awarded under the heads of 'future medical expenses' and 'pain and suffering' do not require any enhancement. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total sum of Rs.3,92,870/- under different heads as below:

Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 68,130/- Conveyance, Attendant charges, Nourishment, Rs. 15,000/- Loss of earnings during the laid up period Rs. 42,500/- Loss of future earnings due to disability Rs. 1,65,240/- Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 12,000/- Total Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement Rs. 3,92,870/- Rs. 3,17,990/- Rs. 74,880/- Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.74,880/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶12In the result, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified. Hence, the following: ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.74,880/- along with interest at 6% per annum (excluding interest of the delayed period of 417 days in

filing the appeal) from the date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal.

(iii) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

(v) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered.

Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE

NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17