Rekha W/O Jotiba Kadam, v. Pramod S/O Maruti Chavan,

NC:(2026:KHC-D:2297( MFA(No.(21358(of(2013( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,(AT(DHARWAD( THDATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MRS(JUSTICE(GEETHA(K.B.( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(21358(OF(2013((MV-I)( ( BETWEEN:(( SMT.,REKHA,W/O.,JOTIBA,KADAM,, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS,,, OCC:,AGRICULTURE,COOLIE,(NOW,NIL),, R/O:,CHAVAT,GALLI,,BELGAUM,, TQ:,AND,DIST:,BELGAUM., …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI.,K.,ANANDKUMAR,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

1., PRAMOD,S/O.,MARUTI,CHAVAN,, AGE:,MAJOR,,OCC:,PRIVATE,WORK,, R/O:,PLOT,NO.9,,MAHADWAR,ROAD,,, TH5 ,CROSS,,AT,BELGAUM,,DIST:,BELGAUM., ,

2., THE,DIVISIONAL,MANAGER,, SAROJA THE,NATIONAL,INSURANCE,CO.,LTD.,, HANGARAKI RAMDEV,GALI,,BELGAUM,,DIST:,BELGAUM., Digitallytisignedtiby SAROJA0HANGARA KI …RESPONDENTS, Location: HIGHCOURT0OF KARNATAKA (BY,SRI.,GANGADHAR,S.,HOSKERI,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2;, DHARWAD0BENCH DHARWAD ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R1,IS,DISPENSED,WITH), , , THIS, MFA, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 173(1), OF, MOTOR, VEHICLES, ACT,, 1988, PRAYING, TO, ALLOW, THE, ABOVE, MISC., FIRST, APPEAL, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, PRAYING, TO, MODIFY, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 01.02.2013, PASSED, BY, THE, COURT,OF,THE,FAST,TRACK,COURT-I,AND,MEMBER,ADDITIONAL, MACT,AT,BELGAUM,IN,M.V.C.NO.1361/2012,AND,ENHANCE,THE, COMPENSATION, AS, PRAYED, IN, THE, CLAIM, PETITION, IN, THE, INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY., ,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.1361/2012 dated 01.02.2013 on the file of FTC-I, Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, 'Tribunal').

¶2Parties are referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶3The claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the accident that had taken place on 10.04.2012 at 19.00 hours on Belagavi-Rakaskoppa road involving motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-22/EE-1161. It is the case of the claimant that while claimant returning from her agricultural work as a pedestrian on left side of the road, the motor cycle came from behind from Rakaskoppa

side rashly and negligently with high speed and dashed against the claimant and thereby caused the accident. Due to the accident, claimant sustained injuries and thus claimed compensation.

¶4After service of notice of claim petition, owner of the motor cycle has filed objection statement, wherein he denied the averments made in the claim petition in toto. On the other hand, it is contended that on the alleged date of accident, rider of the motor cycle was riding slowly and cautiously and at that time claimant came from opposite side suddenly before the motor cycle and thus rider has lost control over the motor cycle and dashed against the claimant. Hence, it is the claimant, who is responsible for causing the accident. The vehicle in question is validly insured with respondent No.2 and hence, prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs.

¶5Respondent No.2-insurer appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement, wherein it is

contended that rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle. The accident alleged in the claim petition is not happened. It is a false and concocted one. Hence, prayed for dismissal of claim petition.

¶6On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining doctor as P.W.2 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.14 and closed her side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, insurance policy was marked as Ex.R.1, but no evidence was let in.

¶7After recording evidence on both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle and awarded compensation of ₹.1,02,000/- under the following heads:

¶8Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

¶9Heard both sides.

¶10Learned counsel for appellant/claimant, Sri K.Anandkumar would submit that the Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.2973/2005 dated 19.07.2005 has not granted the compensation under the head 'future earning capacity' to the claimant, as claimant suffered fracture of clavicle bone even though the doctor assessed the disability at 30% to the particular limb. Hence, prayed for granting compensation under the head-'loss of future earning capacity'. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Co-Injury, pain and agony Rs.25,000/- Medical expenses Rs.32,000/- Nursing, Attendant charges, extra Nourishment and conveyance

Rs.10,000/-Loss of earning during treatment Rs.10,000/-Loss of amenities and future Unhappiness Rs.25,000/-

Total Rs.1,02,000/-

ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.4604/2008 dated

18.11.2011.

¶11Learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Gangadhar S Hoskeri would submit that P.W.2 is not the treated doctor. Hence, claimant is not entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of future earning capacity' because he has not established the disability. The evidence of P.W.2 is not reliable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal.

¶12Having heard arguments of both sides and verifying the appeal papers along with Trial Court records, the point that arises for consideration is: "1. Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation towards 'loss of future earning capacity'? If so, at what rate?"

¶13Finding of this Court on the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

¶14The date, place and time of accident and sustaining injury by the claimant in said accident are not in dispute. It is established that on 10.04.2012, when claimant was coming after completion of her agricultural work to her house at about 07.00 p.m., she met with an accident from motor cycle bearing No.KA-22/EE-1161 and sustained the injuries mentioned in wound certificate as per Ex.P.7.

¶15According to this wound certificate, the claimant has sustained dislocation of a cromio-clavicle (left), which is grievous in nature and other two injuries are simple in nature. The claimant has produced several medical documents along with prescription and other documents to show that she has taken treatment for the aforesaid injuries. The charge-sheet and its annexure would reveal that the accident happened due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the motor cycle. Ex.P.12 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.2.

¶16The Tribunal has mentioned the details of this disability certificate in detail in the impugned judgment and only based on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.2973-2005 dated 19.07.2005, has not granted compensation to the claimant towards 'loss of future earning capacity'. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that, 'in case of clavicle and mandible fractures, there would be no consequence loss of future earning capacity. Therefore any compensation under the said head is impermissible',

¶17In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.4604/2008 dated

18.11.2011, wherein claimant had sustained fracture of left clavicle bone; in the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has awarded ₹.3,57,000/- towards loss of future income and it was confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench.

¶18It is to be noted here that in the present case, the claimant was the agricultural coolie worker and hence stretching her hands is required to perform her job qualitatively.

¶19In the instant case, Ex.P.12-disability certificate clearly reveals that there is restriction of movement of the fractured shoulder; she was also suffering from frozen shoulder and hence P.W.2-doctor has opined that there is 30% disability to the upper limb of claimant.

¶20P.W.2 even though cross-examined by learned counsel for respondent, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the certificate issued by P.W.2. Only because P.W.2 is not a treated doctor, his evidence cannot be brush aside. Thus, the doctor opined that there is 30% disability to the particular limb and 10% of it has to be taken to the whole body.

¶21The claimant was aged 32 years as on the date of accident as per claim petition averments and as

mentioned in the wound certificate. Hence, the relevant multiplier to be adopted is 16 as per Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104.

¶22There is no admissible document produced by the claimant to show her actual income. Hence, the chart prepared for Lok-Adalat by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be considered to decide the notional income of the claimant. According to it, as the accident had taken place in the year 2012, the notional income of claimant be taken at ₹.6,500/- per month. Thus, claimant is entitled for compensation at ₹.6,500 x 12 x 16 x 10% = ₹.1,24,800/-.

¶23The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant under other heads i.e., towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of earning during treatment and loss of amenities and future unhappiness, which is proper and needs no interference.

¶24Thus, the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of ₹.1,24,800/- under the head 'loss of future earning capacity'.

¶25With this modification, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER

¶1Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.

¶2Judgment and award in MVC No.1361/2012 dated

01.02.2013 on the file of FTC-I, Additional MACT, Belagavi is modified holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of ₹.1,24,800/- along with interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till realization in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶3The respondent-Insurer shall deposit the additional compensation with interest before

the Tribunal within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶4Draw modified award accordingly.

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

SH CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5