The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9463 OF 2015 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7958 OF 2015 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5298 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No.9463/2015 BETWEEN THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, KOLAR THROUGH MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-1 BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY (BY SRI K SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE A/W SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND 1 . SRI. MANEESH KUMAR S/O MANGILAL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT RAJPET ROAD, KUPPAM ROAD KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TQ-563173 2 . CHINNA OBUL REDDY S/O O PULLA REDDY Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO.1340, SANJEEVANAGAR ANDHRA PRADESH 04 3 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE-3, NO-7 UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI, 2ND FLOOR, ROSY TOWERS NUNGAMBAKAM, CHENNAI-600002 4 . M CHEZHIYAN S/O MUTHUSWAMY MAJOR IN AGE , DINESH ILLAM R/AT 4TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET K G F BANGARPET TALUK-563173 (BY SMT SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI B S UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 06.07.2021 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 06.01.2025) ..RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND (SITTING AT KGF), AWARDING SESSIONS COMPENSATION OF RS.17,20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION AND ETC. JUDGE, KOLAR, IN MFA No.7958/2015 BETWEEN M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, D.O-13, ROSY TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 034 THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 BANGALORE-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. ...APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI UMESH B S, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI MANEESH KUMAR S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT RAJPET ROAD, KUPPAM ROAD, KYASAMBALLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 121. 2 . U.CHINNA OBUL REDDY S/O PULLA REDDY AGE MAJOR, EXACT NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT R/AT NO.1340, SANJEEVANAGAR, TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL, ANATHPUR DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH-515 411. 3 . SRI.N.CHEZHIYAN S/O K.MUTHUSWAMY, AGE MAJOR, EXACT NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT, R/AT AT DINESH ILLAM, 4TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET, KGF TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 122. 4 . M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD BRANCH OFFICER, KOLAR BRANCH, BAGALUR MANSION, 2ND FLOOR, DODDAPET, KOLAR TOWN AND DISTRICT-563 101 (BY SMT SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI K SURAYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE A/W SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 29.06.2021) …RESPONDENTS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SITTING AT K.G.F) AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION AND ETC. JUDGE, KOLAR ...APPELLANT IN MFA No.5298/2016 BETWEEN SRI. MANEESH KUMAR S/O. MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAJPET ROAD, KUPPAM ROAD, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. (BY SMT SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI. CHINNA OBUL REDDY S/O. PULLA REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.1340, SANJEEVANAGAR, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-500 038. 2 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISION OFFICE-3, NO.7, UTHAMAR, GANDHI SALAI, 2ND FLOOR, ROSY TOWERS, NUNGAMBAKAM, CHENNAI-600 034, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 3 . M. CHEZHIYAN S/O. MUTHUSWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT DINESH ILLAM, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 4TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F.-563 122, BANGARPET TALUK. 4 . THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD KOLAR BRANCH OFFICE, BAGALUR MANSION, II FLOOR, DODDAPET, KOLAR-563 101. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. (BY SRI B S UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI K SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE A/W SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 22.11.2017 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 13.06.2024) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION ENHANCEMENT OF FOR COMPENSATION AND ETC. COMPENSATION SEEKING AND THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 27.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, POONACHA.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) All the above appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 22.7.2015 passed in MVC No.16/2007 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 Kolar (sitting at K.G.F)1. Hence they are taken up together for consideration. 2. The parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that on 13.2.2007 the claimant was traveling as a passenger of bus bearing registration No.KA-08- A-4777. That when the said bus reached Sandaghatta Cross, from the opposite direction lorry bearing registration No.AP-02- W-1564 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus in which the claimant was traveling causing the accident in question. Due to the said accident, an iron rod of the bus entered into the head of the claimant from the frontal portion and came out on the left side of the neck. The claimant was shifted to Kuppam Medical College where he was given first aid and thereafter, shifted to Bangalore for further treatment. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident, the claimant instituted the claim proceedings arraying the owner and insurer of the lorry as respondent Nos.1 and 2 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 and the owner and insurer of the bus as respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. 5. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and a doctor as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked in evidence. An employee of the second respondent/insurer of the lorry was examined as RW.1. Exs.R1 to R7 were marked in evidence. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 17.9.2010, partly allowed the claim petition, awarded compensation of ₹7,29,416/- together interest at 6% per annum and held that the first respondent/owner of the lorry liable to pay the compensation awarded. 6. Being aggrieved, the owner of the lorry preferred MFA No.225/2011, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2014. The claimant preferred MFA No.900/2011. A coordinate Bench of
Decision
this Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2014 disposed of the said appeal wherein its judgment dated 13.11.2014 passed in MFA No.225/2011 was noticed and it was held that the insurer of the lorry is liable to satisfy the compensation awarded. Further, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 this Court, noticing the contention put forth by the claimant that he has incurred huge medical expenses and that he could not produce the relevant medical bills, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to mark necessary documents. 7. On remand, the claimant got examined another doctor as PW.3 and marked Ex.P25. The Tribunal noticed the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by this Court in MFA No.900/2011 and by its judgment and award dated 22.7.2015 partly allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of `17,20,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a., and directed respondent Nos.2 and 4, the insurers of the lorry and bus respectively to pay the compensation awarded. 8. Being aggrieved, the insurer of the bus has preferred MFA No.9463/2015, the insurer of the lorry has preferred MFA No.7958/2015 and the claimant has preferred MFA No.5298/2016. 9. Learned Counsel Sri C.R.Ravishankar appearing for the appellant in MFA No.9463/2015 - the insurer of the bus contends that having regard to the order dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011, whereunder this Court has held that the insurer of the lorry was liable to satisfy the award of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 the Tribunal, the finding of the Tribunal recorded in the operative portion of its judgment dated 22.7.2015 holding respondent Nos.2 and 4, the insurers of both vehicles to pay the compensation is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 10. Learned counsel Sri B.S.Umesh appearing for the appellant in MFA No.7958/2015 - the insurer of the lorry does not dispute the finding recorded in the order dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011, wherein it has been held that the insurer of the lorry is liable to pay the compensation awarded and fairly submits that the judgment and award of the Tribunal directing the insurers of both vehicles to pay the compensation requires to be interfered with. It is further contended that having regard to the limited scope of remand made by this Court vide its order dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011, wherein this Court has specifically remanded the matter only for the purpose of production of medical bills, the Tribunal awarding compensation on various other heads is erroneous and contrary to the scope of remand made by this Court. That the claimant, consequent to the remand did not produce any other medical bills. Instead PW.3 was examined by the claimant who has deposed regarding the alleged disability - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 of the claimant. That the doctor- PW.2 has not assessed the whole body disability and that the Tribunal in its judgment dated 17.9.2010 passed in the earlier round of litigation has, categorically recorded a finding that the claimant has appeared and answered all the questions in the cross examination. Hence, it is contended that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is erroneous. That the compensation on other heads is also on the higher side. 11. Learned counsel Smt.Sushmitha G appearing for learned counsel Sri Gopalakrishna for the appellant in MFA No.5298/2016 - claimant contends that order of this Court dated 25.11.2014 in MFA No.900/2011 was an open remand and that the Tribunal was justified in reassessing the compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 having regard to the fact that the claimant was admittedly aged 20 years as on date of the accident and that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. That the injuries sustained by the claimant are ghastly and that higher amounts of compensation ought to be awarded on various heads. That the income of the claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 12. The submissions of above learned counsel have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the compensation was liable to be paid by respondent Nos.2 and 4 i.e., the insurers of both the vehicles ? ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in reassessing the entire to have considered only the further medical bills after the remand made by this Court vide its order dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011? compensation and ought iii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced? Re. question No.(i): 13. It is clear from para 6 of the judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011 that this Court following the order dated 13.11.2014 passed MFA No.225/2011 held that the insurer of the lorry is liable to satisfy the award of the Tribunal. The said aspect of the matter is also not seriously disputed by the insurer of the lorry. In view of the same, question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 Re. question No.(ii): 14. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011 while considering the appeal filed by the claimant ordered as follows: “6. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the 1st Respondent-owner of the offending vehicle is liable to satisfy the award is set aside. Following the order passed in MFA No.225/2011 dated 13.11.2014, we hold that the Insurer is liable to satisfy the award. Insofar as the prayer 7. for enhancement of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the claimant submits that there are a number of medical bills which were produced and which have not been marked. 8. In view of the serious injuries suffered by the incurred heavy medical claimant, he could have expenses and in view of non-marking of those medical bills, he could not claim appropriate the medical expenses incurred. Therefore, it is just and appropriate if the claimant is provided an opportunity to mark the said documents during the course of evidence in order to receive a just and fair compensation. 9. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the considered view that it is just and appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal in order to enable the claimant to mark the necessary documents during the course of evidence in order to receive a just compensation. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The insurer is held liable to satisfy the award. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for determination of appropriate compensation as held herein above. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 The claimant is at liberty to lead additional evidence in support of his claims. The parties concerned on 27.01.2015.” to appear before the Tribunal (emphasis supplied) 15. It is clear from the aforementioned that at para 7 of its order, this Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the claimant. Further, at para 8, this Court held that it was just and proper to provide an opportunity to the claimant to mark the documents in order to receive just and fair compensation. At para 9, this Court further ordered that the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal to enable the claimant to mark necessary documents to receive just compensation. 16. It is clear from the aforementioned that the remand made by this Court to the Tribunal was to enable the claimant to mark necessary documents in order to receive just compensation. The remand made by this Court can, in no manner be construed as being limited to production of medical bills only. In any event, the Tribunal was required to consider and award just compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. In view of the same, question No.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 Re. question No.(iii): 17. The claimant is an 18 year old student who was pursuing B.E., Engineering and also helping his father in his cloth business. In the accident which occurred on 13.2.2007 a rod pierced through the head of the claimant over the frontal aspect in the middle and came out through the backside of the neck. The discharge summary issued by Sparsh Hospital (Ex.P7) and the CT Scan conducted by Narayana Hrudayala Hospital (Ex.P10) disclose that there were multiple fractures involving frontal bone and base of the skull. Ex.P7 further discloses that the claimant underwent seven surgeries i.e., on 13.2.2007, 21.2.2007, 2.3.2007, 10.3.2007, 24.3.2007, 3.4.2007 and 5.4.2007. The claimant was an inpatient at Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, from 13.2.2007 to 9.6.2007 i.e., for a total period of 117 days. Discharge summary issued by Narayana Institute of Neuro Sciences (Ex.P5) discloses that the claimant was treated as an inpatient from 15.11.2007 to 20.11.2007 i.e., for a period of 6 days. Thus, totally the claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 123 days. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 18. PW.2 - Dr. R.Shashikumar has deposed that he is the Assistant Surgeon and Medical Officer at Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru. He has deposed regarding various scans and procedures conducted in the said hospital. That on 18.3.2010 the claimant came to the hospital with a complaint of head ache on and off, unable to concentrate, loss of memory, irritability, confusion and distraction. That as per Neuro psychological profile, patient has disability rating of Grade 3, deficit is present which interferes with adjustment of daily living. PW.2 has been cross-examined in detail. He has admitted that he has done M.D., in Forensic Medicine. He has denied that he is not a qualified person to give report on neurological treatment. 19. Dr. Paparajamurthy Dantam (erroneously mentioned as Sundaramurthy in the judgment of the Tribunal) has been examined as PW.3. He deposed that he was working as Neuro Surgeon at RLJ Hospital. He has deposed regarding the treatment given to the claimant. That the claimant was evaluated by him on 19.6.2015 as an outpatient and that the claimant has mild cognitive disability, facial asymmetry involving forehead, left eye lid retraction with exotropia and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 right nystagmus. PW.3 has deposed that the claimant has intellectual disability at 25% (mild cognitive disability), physical impairment of 16% and the permanent physical impairment (disability) in neurological condition is 36.55%. PW.3 has also been cross-examined in detail. 20. The claimant has produced various medical bills and has stated that the total expenditure towards medical bills is `11,78,589.92. The Tribunal considering the documents has awarded a sum of `11.00 lakhs towards medical expenses, which is just and proper. Considering nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and treatment, Tribunal should have awarded `11,78,590/-. Hence, the compensation towards medical expenses is reassessed as `11,78,590/-. 21. It is clear that although the claimant was treated as an inpatient for a total period of 123 days, he was advised to take follow-up treatment. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `20,000/- towards nutritional, incidental and traveling expenses. Having regard to the total period of hospitalization during which he was treated as an inpatient, it is just and proper that the expenses towards attendant charges, nutritious food and incidental expenses be re-assessed as `1.00 lakh. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 22. The claimant has sustained multiple fractures to the skull and has undergone seven surgeries. It is clear that the injuries sustained by him are serious and the claimant has taken treatment for a long period of time for the same. Hence, compensation for pain and suffering is re-assessed at `2lakhs as against `50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 23. The claimant has averred that he is a student. Admission bills (Ex.P12), Transfer Certificate (Ex.P13), Polytechnic Certificate (Ex.P14) and Study Certificate (Ex.P20) disclose the same. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of the claimant as `50,000/- and taken 50% of the same for the purpose of calculating loss of future earning capacity. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kandasami & Ors., v. Lindabriyal & Anr.,2 has assessed the income of an Engineering Graduate with respect to an accident which occurred on 28.9.2008 at `25,000/- p.m. In the present case, the claimant is also an Engineering Student having a Diploma degree. Hence, it is just and proper that the income of the claimant be assessed as `25,000/- p.m. 2 2023 ACJ 1653/Civil Appeal No.3125/2023 (arising out of SLP (C) No.33897/2018), DD 24.4.2023) - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 25. PW.3 has assessed the disability at 36.55%. The Tribunal has noticed that the doctors have opined the disability at 25%. 26. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the Tribunal in its judgment dated 17.9.2010 passed in the earlier round of litigation has recorded a finding that the claimant has deposed before the Tribunal as PW.1 and has answered all the questions in the cross-examination and hence there is no disability, having regard to the fact that the claimant has sustained multiple fractures on the skull and the effect of the iron rod having pierced his head has its various consequential effects, which is forthcoming from the neurological reports, a reading of which discloses the injuries that the claimant has suffered. Doctors PW.2 and 3 have also stated regarding the cognitive disability. In view of the testimony of PWs.2 and 3, it is just and proper that the disability of the claimant be re-assessed as 35%. 27. Admittedly, the claimant is aged 18 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier is 18. 28. Hence, the loss of future earnings is re-assessed as (`25,000/-x12x18x35%) `18,90,000/- as against `5,50,000/- - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 [`4,00,000/- (loss of future income) and `1,50,000/- (notional disablement)] awarded by the Tribunal. 29. Having regard to the period during which the claimant was treated as an inpatient, the period of treatment is assessed as six months and loss of income towards the same is assessed as (`25,000/-x6) `1,50,000/-. 30. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, resultant disability and the period of treatment, loss of amenities is assessed as `1.00 lakh. 31. Having regard to the fact that the claimant is a bachelor and the injuries and the resultant disability would also affect the marriage prospects, it is just and proper that `1.00 lakh be awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. 32. The claimant has deposed that he has sustained loss of educational prospects. The injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment as also the consequential disability would have definitely impacted the future educational prospects of the claimant. Hence, it is just and proper that a sum of `1.00 lakh be awarded on the said aspect. 33. Accordingly, the compensation is reassessed as follows: - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 Sl.No. Heads 1 2 3. 4. 5 6 7 8 Pain and sufferings Medical expenses Loss of income during laid up period Food, diet, nourishment, transportation charges, attendant charges, conveyance, etc. Permanent loss of amenities, etc., Loss of amenities Loss prospects Future prospects educational disability, marriage of Amount awarded by the Tribunal(`) 50,000.00 11,00,000.00 0.00 Amount awarded by this Court(`) 2,00,000.00 11,78,590.00 1,50,000.00 20,000.00 1,00,000.00 5,50,000.00 18,90,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00 0.00 1,00,000.00 Total 17,20,000.00 38,18,590.00 34. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of `38,18,590/- as against `17,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. 35. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i. ii. MFA No.9463/2015 and MFA No.5298/2016 are allowed in part; MFA No.7958/2015 is dismissed; - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 iii. The judgment and award dated 22.7.2015 passed in MVC No.16/2007 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.) is modified as under: a. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of `38,18,590/- together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization; b. Respondent No.2 - the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,/insurer of the lorry is directed to pay the compensation awarded together with the accrued interest; iv. The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA No.9463/2015 shall be refunded to the said appellant; v. The appellant in MFA No.7958/2015 - insurer of the lorry shall deposit the balance compensation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi. Upon deposit, 40% of the amount shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in any nationalized/scheduled bank of the choice of the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB MFA No. 9463 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015 MFA No. 5298 of 2016 claimant with liberty to draw interest accrued on that periodically and the remaining 60% of the amount shall be digitally released to him upon proper identification; vii. The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA No.7958/2015 together with TCRs be transmitted to the Tribunal; viii. Draw the modified decree accordingly. SD/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3