The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.871 OF 2024 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.881 OF 2024 (MV-I) IN MFA.No.871/2024: BETWEEN: SRI K.MANOHAR REDDY S/O.K.VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS KANGANAM BANDA NIDIGUNTA POST PEDDPANAJANI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517 432 (BY SRI P.S.KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHAIK SABIR S/O.SHAIK KHLIFALS MAJOR R/AT NO.28, SHAHINSHA NAGAR KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR-563 101 2. THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18 KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR OPP. TO HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT (BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 05.03.2025) … RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.4372/2021 BY VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU. IN MFA.NO.881/2024: BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRI K.JASWANTH REDDY S/O.K.MANOHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI K.MANOHAR REDDY KANGANAM BANDA NIDIGUNTA POST PEDDAPANAJANI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517 432 (BY SRI P.S.KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHAIK SABIR S/O.SHAIK KHLIFALS MAJOR R/AT NO.28, SHAHINSHA NAGAR KOALR TOWN KOLAR-563 101 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18 KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 ... APPELLANT … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 04.03.2025) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.4373/2021 BY VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by the appellants- claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MVC.Nos.4372/2021 and 4373/2021 on the file of VIII Additional Judge and ACMM, Member- MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). These appeals are founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Though the matters are listed for admission, with consent of learned counsels for parties, they are taken up for final disposal. 3. Parties to the appeals shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 06.01.2021, the claimant in MVC.No.4372/2021 was going towards Chaithanya College by driving his auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-03-TC-4040 at 8:45 a.m. to drop the School children, wherein his son, who is the claimant in MVC.No.4373/2021 was also travelling, at that time, on Madanapalle-Palamaner road, the driver of Tavera Car bearing registration No.KA-53-B-8142 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the auto rickshaw driven by the claimant. Due to the said impact, both the father and the son sustained grievous injuries all over their body. Immediately, the father shifted to the Government Hospital, Palamaner and thereafter, he was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, wherein he took conservative treatment, whereas, the son was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palamaner and he was then referred to Government Hospital, Chittoor and having spent amount towards the treatment, the claimants filed claim petitions seeking compensation against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 respondents, who are the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company. 4.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and was placed ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the claim of the claimants and hence, seeks dismissal of the claim petitions. 4.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC.No.4372/2021 and Rs.1,45,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC.No.4373/2021 and directed the respondent- Insurance Company to pay the compensation within sixty days. 4.3 Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant-father in MVC.No.4372/2021 filed an appeal in MFA.No.871/2024 and the claimant-son in MVC.No.4373/2021 filed an appeal - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 in MFA.No.881/2024 before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation in both the cases. The tribunal, without taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant-father namely, K.Manohar Reddy, has awarded only global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which is erroneous and the same requires to be enhanced. 5.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for appellants-claimants that in the case of the minor child K.Jaswanth Reddy, aged 14 years, the tribunal has grossly committed an error in not taking into consideration the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2014)14 SCC 396, whereby it has been held that if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, the compensation is to be awarded at Rs.3,00,000/- and if - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 it is upto 10%, the compensation is to be awarded at Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, it goes up on the basis of the disability. This aspect has been ignored by the tribunal in awarding compensation to the minor child. It is also contended by learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the Doctor has been examined in the case of the minor child as PW.2, who was opined the disability to an extent of 11% to the whole body by holding the permanent disability to an extent of 32% to the left arm. Therefore, the disability being more than 10% i.e. 11%, which is opined by the Doctor, the compensation ought to have been awarded at Rs.3,00,000/- as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra, which has not been done by the tribunal. Hence, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company vehemently contends that in the case of the injuries sustained by the father, K.Manohar Reddy, there is absolutely no material placed on record by the claimant- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 father to show any expenditures expended towards treatment of injuries. Admittedly, there is no disability and the Doctor has not been examined and no material is placed with regard to disability by way of any certificate, so also, any photographs. Even according to the wound certificate, which is produced at Ex.P6, it is shown as only lacerated wound and no material is placed by the claimant-father to depict having spent more amount for grant of compensation. Therefore, due to lack of production of any substantive piece of material before the Court, the tribunal is justified in awarding Rs.20,000/- as global compensation to the claimant-father. 6.1 In the case of the claimant-minor child, learned counsel sustains the judgment and award passed by the tribunal by contending that the Doctor-PW.2 is not the treated Doctor. He has examined the minor child after 01 year and 11 months. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the tribunal on the basis of materials placed and the evidence of the Doctor cannot be believed. The tribunal - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 assessed the disability to be 10% and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the judgement in the case of Mallikarjun stated supra. He sustains the same and seeks dismissal of the appeals. 7. Having heard learned counsel for appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the point that arises for concentration is that - "Whether the claimants in both the cases are entitled for any enhancement of compensation? If so, what amount?" IN MFA.No.871/2024 (MVC.No.4372/2021): 8. In the case of the claimant-father namely, K.Manohar Reddy, he sustained injuries in the accident. However, apart from producing the documents at Ex.P6- wound certificate and Ex.P7-discharge summary, no piece of material is placed before the Court to show any financial expenditures expended by the claimant. Therefore, the tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 8.1 Taking into consideration the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident, which is not challenged or - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 disputed, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the claimant-father having approached this Court for having sustained lacerated wound and having spent his time before the Court seeking compensation, a marginal increase could be granted over and above the global compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, in additional to Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal, another sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded. In all, the claimant-father is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.40,000/-. IN MFA.No.881/2024 (MVC.No.4373/2021): 9. In the case of the claimant-son namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy, apparently, the Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has opined the permanent disability to an extent of 32% to the left arm and the disability of 11% to the whole body. It is no doubt true that PW.2 is a Doctor, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental Center, Bengaluru, has given the opinion on the basis of medical records and clinical notes furnished to him and adduced evidence. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 9.1 When the expert has provided evidence opining the disability of 11% to the whole body, unless the contra material is placed on record by the Insurance Company to contradict the same, the tribunal may not be in a position to provide expert opinion on the medical issues involved with regard to disability, which is the domain of the medical expert. Therefore, I do not agree with the opinion expressed by the tribunal and the contentions of learned counsel for Insurance Company in sustaining the impugned judgment and award. Hence, if the disability is taken at 11% to the whole body, considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun stated supra, for disability of above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, the compensation that requires to be awarded is Rs.3,00,000/-. 9.2 Under the circumstance, in the present case, the claimant- minor child namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, hardship - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 inconvenience and discomforts etc. and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings of parents of petitioner, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. Accordingly, the claimant-son namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- as against Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 10. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following: i) ii)
Decision
ORDER The appeals are allowed-in-part; The judgements and award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MVC.Nos.4372/2021 and 4373/2021 on the file of VIII Additional Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, are modified; - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 iii) The claimant-father namely, K.Manohar Reddy in MFA.No.871/2024 (MVC.No.4372/2021) is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum; iv) The claimant-son namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy in MFA.No.881/2024 (MVC.No.4373/2021) is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- as against Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company in both the cases within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants in both the cases as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimants upon furnishing the required Bank details/upon proper identification; - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024 vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41