- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200753 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: GOPAL S/O SHIVAPPA ILAGER, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NOW NILL), R/O SHEGUNASHI, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUTAPPA S/O NINGAPPA WALIKAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHEGUNASHI, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 125. 2. THE MANAGER CLAIMS, IFFCO-TOKIO INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.141, 6TH FLOOR, SHRI SHANTI TOWERS, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU-43. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 07.02.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO. XIII AND IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.14/2017 AND ENTIRE LIABILITY SHIFTED TO RESPONDENT NO.3. 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) Though the matter is slated for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal since the trial Court records have been received by this Court. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation in MVC.No.14/2017 by the learned IV - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 Additional District and Session Judge, Vijayapura, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 11.10.2016, the petitioner was a pillion rider on the motorcycle driven by one Muttappa. He was the rider on the motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/EG-5296, which was insured by the respondent No.2. When they were near the land of one Gurappa Naganur, the motorcycle was driven in rash and negligent manner and he lost control and fell down, resulting in spinal injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner was shifted to Swaasthya Health City Hospital, Vijayapura and thereafter, to Gangamai Hospital, Solapur. It is contended that the petitioner had suffered spine injuries resulting in all his four limbs being paralyzed and it is a case of paraplegia. Petitioner contended that he was working as a Driver earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. On issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and respondent No.2 filed the written statement. The respondent No.1 did not file any written - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 statement despite appearance. The respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner being a pillion rider had consumed alcohol and therefore, there was negligence on the part of the petitioner. It was contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the respondent No.1 and as such, the liability has to be fastened upon the respondent No.1. Inter alia, respondent No.2 denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and termed the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable. 5. On the basis of the above contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1. and an Orthopedic Surgeon was examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to 17 were marked. The official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW.1 and copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R1. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.20,52,836/- under the following heads: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 For the injuries suffered and pain and sufferings Rs.1,65,000/- Transpiration and nourishment Rs.50,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/- Medical Bills Rs.3,52,636/- Loss of income for the rest of life Rs.12,85,200/- Total Rs.20,52,836/- 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 7. It is submitted by both the counsels that the Insurance Company had also filed an appeal contending that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner in MFA.No.202510/2019 and the said appeal came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 10.11.2021 by a Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the contention of the contributory negligence has been finally decided and the said aspect need not be gone into. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant would submit that the deposition of PW.1 coupled with the testimony of the PW.2 would clearly show that the petitioner is totally confined to the wheelchair or the bed. It is submitted that though PW.2 assessed the functional disability of the petitioner at 75- 80%, the functional disability of the petitioner should have been taken by the Tribunal at 100%. It is submitted that though the Tribunal took the disability at 70%, it did not add the ‘future prospects’ to the same. Therefore, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be revisited and a fresh assessment has to be made. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct and there is no need for interference in the same. It is submitted that the petitioner though claimed to be a Driver, has not produced any documentary evidence - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 regarding the same and as such, he defends the impugned judgment. 10. A careful perusal of the records would show that the Tribunal while recording the testimony of the PW.1, has noted that he was brought to the Court in wheelchair with an attendant and the body of the petitioner was tied to the wheelchair. It also noticed that if the cloth which was tied to the wheelchair is removed, the petitioner could not sit on the wheelchair. This observation by the Tribunal clearly indicates that the petitioner is totally paralyzed and it is a case of quadriplegia. 11. The testimony of PW.2-Dr.Shantappa Sidagondappa Nagathan shows that he was an orthopedic surgeon and a member of the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Vijayapura. He states that the petitioner had injuries to the cervical spinal cord with multiple discs lesions in a road traffic accident. He notices that the petitioner was brought in a stature of inability to move the upper and the lower limbs and there is decrease in the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 muscle power by 3/5 in all the four limbs. He also notices that the petitioner was unable to sit, squat, kneel and stand. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that there is severe difficulty in the daily activities and life of the petitioner and he needs a supportive person. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that there is a disability of 75% to 80% to the whole body. Obviously, the testimony of PW.2 does not show that he had considered the avocation of the petitioner in any way. 12. A perusal of Ex.P17, the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board also shows the same. Therefore, it is evident that the opinion of the Medical Board which consisted of a physician, orthopedician and another expert could not have been brushed aside to reduce the disability to 70%. Obviously, it is worth to note that though the petitioner contended that he was working as a Driver, he did not produce any material to establish the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken a notional - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 income of Rs.9,000/-, which appears to be proper and no interference is required in the same. 13. However, the functional disability with respect to the avocation and the disability suffered by the petitioner need to be considered to assess the functional disability. Though the Medical Board has given a physical disability of 75%-80%, the functional disability appears to be 100%. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the functional disability of the petitioner is 100%. This Court is aware that the petitioner was aged about 30 years when the accident took place and as such, a multiplier of ‘17’ was adopted by the Tribunal. 14. When the disability is on the higher side, it is a settled proposition of law that the ‘future prospects’ have to be added. Hence, the effective multiplicand would be Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). Hence, ‘loss of future income on account of the functional disability’ is considered as Rs.12,600/- X 12 X 17 that equals Rs.25,70,400/-. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 15. Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of ‘attendant charges’. It is pertinent to note that when the disability is on the higher side, the petitioner is entitled for ‘attendant charges’ also. It must be noted that the cost of an attendant to look after the petitioner permanently is fluid and it cannot be a fixed one. Considering the same, Rs.2,500/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.5,10,000/- is awarded under the head of ‘attendant charges’. 16. The compensation awarded under the remaining heads is proper and no interference is required. Accordingly, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.38,48,036/- as below as against Rs.20,52,836/- awarded by the Tribunal: Sl. No. Heads Award by the Tribunal (Amount In Rs.) Award by this Court (Amount In Rs.) 1 For the injuries suffered and pain and sufferings 1,65,000/- 1,65,000/- 2 Transpiration and nourishment 50,000/- 50,000/- 3 Loss of amenities 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 4 Medical Bills 3,52,636/- 3,52,636/- 5 Loss of income for the rest of life 12,85,200/- 25,70,400/- 6 Attendant Charges - 5,10,000/- Total 20,52,836/- 38,48,036/- Less: Award by the Tribunal 20,52,836/- Total enhancement 17,95,200/- 17. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed and hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. (iii) The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.17,95,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iv) The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest within a - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2461 MFA No. 200753 of 2024 period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) Rest of the order of the Tribunal remain unaltered. Sri.M.Sudarshan, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath for respondent No.2 within two weeks. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT: AK