- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201924/2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER/LEGAL OFFICER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCHADE, BAILEKHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, HMB POST, BANGALORE-560 076. PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.3/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OFF BHANNERUGHATTA ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU-560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JAHANGIR ALI S/O ISMAILSAB, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O H.NO.9-5-333, IRANI COLONY, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 CHIDRI ROAD, BIDAR-585 403. 2. RAJKUMAR S/O SANGAPPA MANKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., & DRIVER, R/O KON-MELKUNDA, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585 328. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHILCES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.576/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. MACT BIDAR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. Though, this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.09.2022 passed in MVC No.576 of 2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and MACT, Bidar, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 29.01.2018, the petitioner was driving a Tata-Ace vehicle and near the limits of Konmelkunda Village, a Cruiser Jeep bearing No.KA-32/M-3633, owned by Respondent No.1 and insured by the appellant, came from the opposite direction and dashed to the petitioner, whereby, he sustained injuries. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Bidar, where he took inpatient treatment for a period of 15 days. The concerned Police registered a case in Crime No.25/2018 and investigated the matter. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the Tata-Ace vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that he has suffered disability and he being a Driver, earning Rs.10,000 per month, he is entitled for an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 adequate compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 5. On service of notice, respondent No.2/Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the petition contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and denied its liability to pay the compensation, on the ground that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated. It was also contended that the negligence was on the part of the petitioner himself and therefore, his negligence also be considered. 6. On the basis of the above contentions, the appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as PW1, treated Doctor was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P24 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, its official was examined RW1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked in evidence. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal awarded - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 compensation of Rs.7,30,173/- under different heads as below: Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- Loss of Future Income on Account of Permanent Disability Rs.6,34,500/- Medical expenses, Attendant, Conveyance, Nourishing Food and Other Incidental Expenses Rs.32,173/- Loss of Income During Laid- Up Period Rs.23,500/- Loss of Amenities, Life Comforts and Expectancy of Life Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.7,30,173/- 7. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant - Insurance Company would submit that the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 30% is on the higher side and there is no justification for the same. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at 9% per annum, and in fact, the Tribunal should have awarded interest at 6% per annum. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – claimant, contends that the disability assessed by PW2 is 42% to the lower limb and 31% to the upper limb. He contends that the disability assessed by the Medical Officer, who had treated the petitioner, will have a higher reliability and therefore, the assessment of the functional disability by the Tribunal at 30% cannot be interfered with. He submits that in catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that the interest may be granted at 9% per annum, which is the interest being given by the nationalized banks for Fixed Deposits. 10. A careful perusal of the testimony of the PW2 coupled with the Disability Certificate issued by him at Ex.P22 would show that the petitioner had sustained fracture of the patella and there is a severe restriction of the movement of the knee joint. He has opined that the range of movement of the knee joint is severely restricted. According to him, the flexion and extension of the knee joint is restricted by 40%. In addition to that, the muscle - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 strength and the stability component are assessed by him and ultimately he comes to the conclusion that the disability of the right lower limb is 42%. 11. In addition to that, the petitioner had sustained fracture of the radius of the left arm and there being the restriction of the movement of the left wrist, he assessed the same at 31%. The cross-examination of the PW2 do not show anything which establish that the assessment made by him is incorrect. 12. In the light of the assessment of the disability by PW2, it is the functional disability which needs to be assessed by the Tribunal. In para 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal discussed the disability. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal considered the disability certificate to state that there is 22% disability to the right lower limb. But in fact, the testimony of the PW2 and the disability certificate show that there is a disability to the extent of 42%. Therefore, when we assess the functional disability of the petitioner with respect to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 injuries sustained by him, which is the fracture of right patella and fracture of lower end of the left radius, the disability to the extent of 42% of the right lower limb and 31% of the left upper limb as stated by the PW2 would definitely result in a functional disability of 30%. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a driver and he had driven his Tata Ace and had parked it by the side of the road and when he was standing on the road, the offending vehicle brushed him and he sustained injuries. Therefore, a person who suffers an injury of the above kind at the age of 42 years, definitely sustain the functional disability. Use of the right leg being of vital importance in driving a vehicle, it impairs his functionality. It is also pertinent to note that the assessment of the disability by the PW2 is after three years of the accident. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the disability would reduce in due course of time is not sustainable. Under these circumstances, the assessment of the functional disability by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 13. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, a Catena of judgments of this Court have held that the rate of interest shall be 6%. The ratio laid down in these judgments show that there is no justification for award of the interest at a higher rate than the one provided under Section 34 of the CPC. Therefore, to that extent, the appeal succeeds. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant-insurance company shall pay the compensation amount as determined by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2541 MFA No. 201924 of 2023 The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal along with the TCR. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SBS,SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: AK