- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202081 OF 2018 (MV-I) C/W. MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200017 OF 2019 (MV-I) IN MFA NO.202081/2018: BETWEEN: THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, VIJETHA SANGEEVANI, H.NO.6-4-8, OPP: GANDI HOSPITAL, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, A.P., THROUGH ITS OFFICE AT ASIAN PLAZA, NEAR S.V. PATEL CHOWK, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VINAYAK S/O ASHOK KARACHAN, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O RAILWAY QUARTER, RB-3, ‘B’ BLOCK, ROOM NO.3, KALABURAGI-585 102. 2. AGNEL MARTIN S/O SABASTIN MARTIN, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF INNOVA NO.AP-9/TVA-2242, R/O NO.8-2-6038/34/C, MARTIN VILLA, ZAHEERABAD NAGAR, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 ROAD NO.10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 034(AP). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV. FOR R1; V/O DTD. 15.02.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2018, PASSED THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI IN MVC NO.03/2015. IN MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.200017/2019: BETWEEN: VINAYAK S/O ASHOK KARACHAN, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, AFTER ACCIDENT, R/O RAILWAY QUARTERS, RB-3, B-BLOCK, ROOM NO.3, KALABURAGI. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AGNEL MARTIN S/O SABASTIN MARTIN, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TOYOTA INNOVA NO.AP-09/TVA-2242, R/O NO.8-2-603B/34/C, MARTIN VILL, ZAHEERA NAGAR, ROAD NO.10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 034 (AP). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 2. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., H.NO.6-4-8, OPP: GANDI HOSPITAL, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD-2, (AP), THROUGH ITS OFFICE, AT ASIAN PLAZA, NEAR S.V. PATEL CHOWK, KALABURAGI-585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 15.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3/2015 BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI. AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FORM RS.5,22,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. THESE APPEALS 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) By consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, these matters are taken up for Final Disposal even though they are slated for Admission and heard the learned counsels for both the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.04.2018 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 Judge and Member, MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC No.03/2015, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is before this Court in MFA No. 202081/2018 and the petitioner is before this Court in MFA CROB 200017/2019. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 15.12.2013 at about 1.00 p.m., the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA.32.ED.9561 along with pillion rider and while he was near Kesaratagi Garden, Gulbarga, a Toyota Innova car bearing No.AP.09.TVA.2242 came from the opposite side and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result, petitioner sustained fracture of shaft of the right femur, fracture of right hand, grievous injuries to thigh, shoulder etc., Pillion rider had also sustained injuries. The petitioner was admitted to the hospital where he underwent surgeries. A case was registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No.422/2013 and ultimately, a chargesheet was laid against the driver of Innova car. Claiming that the petitioner was aged 22 years at the time of accident earning Rs.15,000/- per month - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 as an Electrician and he having suffered permanent disability for having sustained fracture claimed adequate compensation at the hands of the Tribunal. 5. The petition was opposed by respondent No.2- Insurance Company contending that there was no such negligence on the part of the driver of the innova car, but the negligence was on the part of the petitioner. It was also alleged that the petitioner as well as the driver of Innova car were not having a valid driving licence and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. It was also contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant, imaginary etc. 6. After framing appropriate issues by the Tribunal, evidence was let in and petitioner examined himself as PW1 and the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P15 were marked. Respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and copy of the policy was marked as Exhibit R1. 7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,21,800/- under the following heads: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,81,000/- Attendant, conveyance charges and nutrition of food etc. Rs. 8,400/- Loss of future income Rs. 3,02,400/- Total Rs. 5,21,800/- 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA No.202081/2018 and the petitioner has approached this Court in MFA CROB No. 200017/2019. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Babu H. Metagudda, submits that the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He contends that except the medical expenses, the compensation awarded under all other remaining heads is on the lower side and the Tribunal failed to compensate the petitioner under the head of loss of amenities in life and loss of income during the laid up period. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the accident took place in the middle of the road and the sketch at Exhibit P3 shows that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 motorcycle was being ridden at the centre of the road indicating a contributory negligence by the petitioner. It is contended that the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor is applicable and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. Inter alia it is submitted that the driving licence of the innova car driver was not placed on record before the Tribunal. 11. A careful perusal of the records go to show that the charge-sheet filed by the concerned police at Ex.P3 indicts the driver of the Innova Car for committing the offence under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act. It is evident that he was not prosecuted for driving without valid driving licence. Therefore, when the respondent - Insurance Company has not issued any notice to the owner of the vehicle seeking to produce the driving licence of the driver, the oral testimony of the RW1 alone would not be sufficient enough to draw an inference that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. In other words, the Ex.P3 has not been sufficiently rebutted by the Insurance Company. No other circumstances, which indicate that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy is brought to the notice of this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 12. Further, a perusal of the charge-sheet at Ex.P3 though states that the accident was on the road, the sketch has not been produced. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. 13. The records also reveal that the petitioner had sustained fracture of the shaft of right femur and distal end of right radius. The Injury Certificate at Ex.P4, Discharge Summaries at Ex.P10 and P11 would indicate the same. It is also relevant to note that the implants had been removed as per Ex.P11. 14. The PW2, who assessed the disability of the petitioner has stated that there is disability of 20% to the upper limb and 30% to the lower limb and in his opinion, the whole body disability is 43%. The Disability Certificate issued by him at Ex.P8 also depicts the same. It is relevant to note that it is functional disability which is of relevance, but not the physical disability. Petitioner claims that he was an Electrician, aged about 22 years, but there is no acceptable evidence to show that he was an Electrician. The Ex.P9 - Experience Certificate - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 issued by one Rajeev Kumar is not proved as required under law by examining the Author. In that view of the matter, even though it is accepted that petitioner was doing the work of a helper to an Electrician, the functional disability for manual worker has to be assessed. 15. The Tribunal has assessed the functional disability at 20%. It is worth to note that the fracture to the right radius which is a dominant hand would definitely result in a little higher disability than to the left hand. Hence, the disability of the petitioner has to be considered at a little higher value and in the considered opinion of this Court it would be proper to consider the disability at 23%. 16. The notional income considered by the Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the KSLSA as well as the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act for a skilled worker. Hence, the loss of future income on account of disability suffered is calculated as Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 23% = Rs.3,47,760/-. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 17. In the light of the injuries sustained, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering at Rs.30,000 needs to be enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. 18. Similarly, owing to the fact that the petitioner was inpatient totally for a period of 21 days, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the heads of attendant’s charges, convenience charges and nutritious food etc. Considering the nature of the injuries, it can safely be said that the petitioner was unable to resume his work at least for a period of 04 months. Hence, a sum of Rs.28,000/- is awarded to him under this head. 19. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities in life, therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to him under the said head. 20. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is just and proper and does not call for any indulgence by this Court. In all, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation as under: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 1. Pain & Suffering Rs.45,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.1,81,000/- 3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.28,000/- 4. Loss of future income on account of disability Rs.3,47,760/- 5. Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs.40,000/- 6. Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.6,61,760/- Less : Award by the Tribunal Rs.5,21,800/- Enhancement Rs.1,39,960/- 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is bereft of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the claimants deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1724 MFA No. 202081 of 2018 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200017 of 2019 (ii) The MFA cross objections filed by the claimant is allowed in part. (iii) The petitioner/cross-objector is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,39,960/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE TSN,SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: AK