IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100699 OF 2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH S/O. MALLAPPA PRASAD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, ASHIRWAD MINES, NOW NIL, R/O. LOKAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. H.G. SHRIPAD S/O. GURURAJRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O. VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GIRIJA A. CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.

BYAHATTI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.03 12:21:58 +0530 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.63/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IX, MUDHOL DATED 30/11/2011 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

1. Heard Sri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri M. K. Saudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Projecting that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- in total. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Mudhol, which entertained the case as MVC No.63/2009, passed orders on 30.11.2011 holding that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the sum thus awarded and projecting that he is entitled to higher sum, the present appeal is filed.

3. Sri.Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the appellant by working as Manager in a mines company, was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of accident. Due to the injuries sustained, he became permanently and completely disabled. The appellant produced sufficient evidence to show that the disability is 22% in respect of the whole body. However, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of the whole body as 11%. Learned counsel further states that, though the Tribunal initially held that the income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month, however changing its view, considering the income as Rs.3,750/- per month, awarded a very meager sum as compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ as well as towards ‘loss of income during the period of treatment’. Learned counsel further submits that, though the appellant took treatment for more than two weeks as an inpatient, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- only towards ‘attendant charges’. Learned counsel also states that, no sum is awarded as compensation towards conveyance charges and food. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.

4. Per contra, the submission that is made by Sri. M. K.

Soudagar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant neither succeeded in establishing the fact that the disability is 22% in respect of the whole body nor in respect of other allied factors and thus the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- in total as compensation.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained a lacerated wound on right temporal region, multiple abrasions over right foot and forearm and head injury with fracture of right temporal and parietal bones. Likewise, it is not in dispute that during admission in hospital he was found with right ear bleeding. By all the evidence that is brought on record, the appellant established that he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 15 days.

6. Now coming to the earnings of the appellant as on the date of accident, as per his version, by working as Manager in a mines company at Lokapur, he was