IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102089 OF 2017 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

CHANDRAPPA S/O. BASAVANTAPPA PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NOW NIL), R/O: R.S. NO.202, KANAKADAS COLONY, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590008.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

GIR IJA A.

AND BYAHATTI

1. MR. MARUTI JOTIBA DHANUCHE, Digitally signed by GIR IJA R/O: HOUSE NO.394/B, A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD SHUKRAWAR PETH, BENCH Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:14 +0530 TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BELAGAVI D O AT:

1^ST FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMAR DHARIYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2016 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.1324/2015 BY THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MACT, BELAGAVI IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,63,000/- AND INTEREST AT RATE OF 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION MAY BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING AS PRAYED FOR WITH 18% INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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) Heard Sri.Yash who represents Sri.Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Amar who represents Sri.C.V.Angadi, learned counsel on record for respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.1324/2015 dated 23.12.2016. This is a claimant's appeal.

3. Arguing on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant as a driver by profession was earning Rs.8,100/- per month apart from Rs.200/- per day as bhatta. However the Tribunal took the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month unjustifiably. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in the year 2015 and for the relevant period, the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad Bench is taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month for settlement of claims and at least said figure should have been adopted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel states that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all heads is on lower side and therefore, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the appellant has failed to produce any proof with regard to his occupation and earnings as on the date of accident and therefore the Tribunal rightly took the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel also states that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained fracture of zygomatic arch bone and fracture of inferior and lateral walls of the right orbit bone of the skull. Considering the submission that is by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, on taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month and without disturbing other parameters that is application of appropriate multiplier ‘9’ and disability in respect of whole body as 10%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.86,400/- (Rs.8,000 x 12 x 9 x 10%). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.64,800/- only under the said head. Therefore, the enhancement will be Rs.21,600/-

(Rs.86,400 – Rs.64,800).

6. Also this