IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200883 OF 2021 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

VINAYAK S/O TUKARAM DHOOPAD, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER AND PVT. SERVICE (NOW NILL), R/O TALIKOTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MAHANTAPPA B. KANTI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O GUDUR, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 101.

2. THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S-5, 2^ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2;

V/O DTD. 06.01.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.11,19,675/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT NO.VIII, MUDDEBIHAL DATED 29.09.2018, IN MVC NO.22 OF

2011.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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)

By consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal, though it is slated for Admission.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.09.2018 passed in MVC No.22/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT No.VIII, Muddebihal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).

2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.50,325/- as compensation and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking enhancement contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.

3. The short point that arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the petitioner, who suffered (i) loss of front teeth with bleeding, (ii) loosening of 2^nd incisor, (iii) swelling of right eye, (iv) abrasion over anterior aspect of elbow with swelling, (v) loss of half tooth and (vi) infraorbital ridge fracture on the right side, is entitled for any additional compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal?

4. The petitioner claimed that he was a Weaver and the Tribunal adopted the income as provided under the NREGA Scheme of the government and assessed the income at Rs.5,730 per month. After considering the elaborate evidence available on record, it has granted the compensation of Rs.50,325/- under the following heads:

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsels appearing for both sides submit that though the Tribunal has written a well articulated judgment, it should have awarded adequate compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Except that, rest of the judgment of the Tribunal does not need any interference.

7. In the light of the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the petitioner, who is a Weaver had lost front teeth and loosening of the 2^nd incisor. At the most, it can be said that the petitioner had difficulty in enjoying the culinary delicacies and therefore, the loss of such enjoyment should have been considered by the Tribunal. Another angle which needs to be added is that, the petitioner may need a denture to make him presentable. After considering these aspects, it appears that the petitioner should have been awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. It is also t