The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3640 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI RANGASWAMY, S/O HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NITTUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, NOW R/WITH N.G.SIDDAGANGAIAH, 1ST FLOOR, NO.152, 4TH CROSS, VEERASHIVA CO-OP BANK ROAD, HEGGERE VILLAGE, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST - 572 215. (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. SRI SHREYAS S. KUMAR, S/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O BOMMENAHALLI, TYAGATUR POST, NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 201, (R.C. OWNER OF BIKE BEARING REG NUMBER KA-06-EL-8043) 2. THE MANAGER, BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OUTER RING ROAD, MARATHA HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037, (POLICY NO. FTW/S5419087/EC/01/002545) (BY SRI RAVI PRAKASH V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020
Legal Reasoning
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.30/2018 BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 22.01.2020 passed by II Additional District Judge and MACT, Tumakuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.30/2018. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant-claimant seeks enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under; That on 26.08.2017 at about 8.30 a.m., the claimant was proceeding on a motor bike bearing Engine No.HA16ACHHF25115 on NH-206 road. When he reached - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 near Anjaneya temple, Nittur village, Gubbi taluk, Tumakuru district another motor bike bearing registration No.KA-06-EL-8043 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike of the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gubbi, wherein, first aid treatment was given and thereafter, to St.John's hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and for the financial expenditures incurred. 3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements, denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,03,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within two months. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. [[ 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tribunal has awarded meager compensation, which is inadequate and erroneous. The tribunal has failed to appreciate the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary. The tribunal has failed to take into consideration the disability towards head injuries, which is termed as a delusion/delirium, as a cognitive disability as per the Doctor who adduced evidence, but has not provided any disability on the mental aspect except opining disability to the physical body, i.e., fractures, as per the orthopedic surgeon who is examined as CW.1. He further contends - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 that the tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation under other heads also. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for interference. Infact on the contrary, he contends that the tribunal has taken disability on the higher side as the Doctor has not clearly opined disability to a particular limb. Hence, the tribunal has awarded higher disability to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant- claimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P24. Therefore, the negligence is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 rightly attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income and appropriate multiplier to be adopted, it is seen that the appellant-claimant has produced several records relying upon the age to be 45 years, but the Aadhaar card and PAN card produced by the claimant himself describe his age to be 56 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident. The tribunal taken the income of Rs.14,000/- per month and the appropriate multiplier applied by the tribunal is '9', which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 8. Now coming to the aspect of disability, CW.1 has been examined by the claimant, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon. He has fairly stated that he has not expressed any opinion with regard to the disability towards head injuries. The Doctor-CW.1 has opined the disability at 27% based on the medical reports, whereas the tribunal, rather than referring the matter to medical expert or for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 re-examination of the disability towards head injuries, has assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body. Considering the fact that the disability towards head injuries has not been expressed by the Doctor-CW.1 and with regard to the treatment taken towards head injuries, the claimant is in a delirious condition and showing delusion and also he having been admitted for several times post operative, thereby some amount of discomfort mentally and cognitive disability is suffered by the claimant. Therefore, disability assessed by the tribunal at 20% to the whole body could be retained as the physical disability as opined by the Doctor-CW.1 by deducting 1/3rd as per the Gazette Notification. However, future prospects at 10% would have to be added, in view of the head injuries and nature of work carried-out by the claimant. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.3,32,640/- (Rs.14,000/- + 10% = Rs.15,400/- x 12 x 9 x 20%) as against Rs.3,02,400/- awarded by the tribunal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 9. The tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- under this head. 10. The tribunal awarded Rs.7,76,702/- towards medical expenses, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. 11. The tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards food, nourishment and conveyance and Rs.30,000/- towards attendant charges, in all Rs.60,000/-. However, the claimant was inpatient for 80 days. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.80,000/- under this head. 12. The tribunal awarded Rs.84,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of the tribunal having assessed the income at Rs.14,000/- per month, the claimant would require atleast seven months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.98,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 7) under this head. 13. The tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- under this head. 14. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,37,342/- as against Rs.13,03,000/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of income due to disability Pain and suffering Medical expenses Food, nourishment and conveyance and attendant charges Loss of income during laid up period Loss of amenities TOTAL 3,32,640-00 1,00,000-00 7,76,702-00 80,000-00 98,000-00 50,000-00 14,37,342-00 15. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The appeal is allowed-in-part; The judgment and award dated 22.01.2020 passed in MVC.No.30/2018 by II Additional i) ii) - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4024 MFA No. 3640 of 2020 District Judge and MACT at Tumakuru, is modified; iii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.14,37,342/- as against Rs.13,03,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the Tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required Bank details/upon proper identification. vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact; vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. viii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK