IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102924 OF 2016 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SHIV @ SHIVRAJ S/O. ANNAPPA RAJURI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOK IN HOTEL, R/O: MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S. NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

AND THE M.D. AND SELF INSURANCE FUND, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

GIR IJA A.

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE BYAHATTI MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE Digitally signed by GIR IJA A. BYAHATTI AND CJM AND ADDITIONAL MACT, DHARWAD DATED Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 31.12.2015 IN M.V.C.NO.87/2014 AND AWARD THE Date: 2025.11.05 12:39:16 +0530 COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING 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.Chandrashekhar S.Nagashetti, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.M.K.Soudagar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Disputing the validity of the award that is passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in M.V.C. No.87/2014 dated 31.12.2015, the claimant therein preferred the present appeal.

3. The appellant projecting himself to be a Cook, was working at one Shetty Lunch Home, Gadag Road and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by the date of accident and due to the injuries sustained, became disabled completely to do any work, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,54,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.2,94,120/- as compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained degloving injury to the right foot and took extensive treatment. During the course of treatment, he underwent a surgical process and skin grafting was done. Though sufficient material was produced before the Tribunal regarding the nature of injury sustained, the treatment taken and the aspect of disability, the Tribunal awarded very meager sum as compensation and therefore, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement in compensation.

5. Per contra, the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the appellant does not suffer with any kind of disability whatsoever. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 12% and indeed there is no disability whatsoever. Learned counsel thereby seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Having considered the evidence of PW-2 and the relevant medical record, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 12% which needs no interference. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering, Rs.39,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,59,120/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities which includes conveyance and nourishment also. However, the Tribunal failed to award any sum as compensation towards attendant charges.

7. Having considered the fact that the appellant who was aged around 28 yeas by the date of accident is left with disability of 12% in respect of whole body, this Court is of the view that the compensation granted towards loss of amenities in life is on lower side. A sum of Rs.30,000/- is granted towards loss of amenities which includes conveyance and nourishment charges. Also, having considered the extensive treatment taken by the appellant which is borne by record, this Court is of the view that the amount granted towards medical expenses that is Rs.1,000/- is on lower