IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200815/2021(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

RAMESH @ RAMANNA S/O HANUMANTHA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MASON WORK (NOW NIL), R/O MADLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR, NOW AT KASBE CAMP, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SYED AHAD PASHA S/O SYED MAHIBOOB, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KA-16/A-1845, R/O KURDI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.

2. MOHAMMED ABDUL SHUKOOR S/O MOHAMMED HAROON, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA-16/A-1845, R/O KURDI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.

3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAICHUR-584 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADV., FOR R3;

R1 & R2-V/O DTD. 31.07.2023 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.160/2019 BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI, AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.4,06,100/- WITH 8% INTEREST TO RS. 17,30,000/-

WITH 12% INTEREST.

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)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.

2. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been dispensed with.

3. Though the matter is slated for admission, by the consent of both parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. This appeal is by the claimant-petitioner against the judgment and award dated 09.11.2020 passed in MVC No.160/2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and M.A.C.T., at Raichur, (for short the Tribunal), seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. The petitioner, who suffered accidental injuries in a road traffic accident on 20.01.2018, had approached the Tribunal seeking compensation. It was the case of the petitioner/appellant that while he was pillion rider on the motorcycle of his friend, the Lorry driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 came in high speed and dashed against the said motorcycle, resulting in petitioner sustaining severe injuries. The petitioner was hospitalized at RIMS Hospital, Raichur, for about 45 days. The records revealed that, he had suffered degloving injury from the thigh to knee of the left leg with muscles and tendons exposed and he had to undergo tendon repair and other such surgeries at RIMS Hospital, Raichur. The records reveal that such degloving injury is severe and even after the treatment, the petitioner is suffering.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a Mason by profession, aged about 35 years, suffered a physical disability of 25% as opined by the Medical Board of RIMS Hospital, Raichur. Therefore, he submits that the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 15% is insufficient and the same needs to be enhanced. According to him, a functional disability of 50% has to be taken. He submits that the petitioner being a Mason, at the age of 35 years cannot adopt himself to a different profession and it has become difficult for him to climb the scaffoldings and to earn his livelihood.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company would submit that though the Medical Board had given disability of 25%, the Tribunal has sufficiently considered the disability and opined that it would be 15% and therefore, no interference or indulgence is required by this Court.

8. It would be sufficient to note that the functional disability and the physical disability are two different aspects. Physical disability would be