- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5265 OF 2019(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI. S AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. SRI. A. SURESH K UMAR, R/AT NO. 74, 2ND FLOOR, PWD MAIN ROAD, NEAR WATER TANK, A. NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE-560 016. 2. SRI. MUJAHID BAIG. M AGED MAJOR, S/O. SRI. MUNEER BAIG, R/AT NO. 324/29, 8TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T. GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O/D 29.08.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.6197/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,48,543/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. ON RS.10,23,543/- (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSE OF RS.25,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. 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 Insurance Company - respondent before the 17th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the exorbitant compensation awarded by the tribunal is seeking to set aside the judgement and award passed by the tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 17.09.2018 while the claimant was crossing the road near B.Narayana pura bus stop, Mahadevapura ring road, Bengaluru, rider of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 03- JS - 3035 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant due to which claimant sustained grievous injuries was admitted to the hospital underwent surgeries and incurred financial expenditures. Due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and the financial expenditures incurred during treatment she filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent - Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle. 3. Respondents filed the objections statement denied the averments made by the claimant, disputed the negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 4. Based on the materials placed on record both oral and documentary, tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.10,48,543/- with interest at 9 percent per annum directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation within 30 days. 5. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the tribunal the Insurance company is in appeal on several grounds urged seeking to set aside the impugned judgement and award. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, the tribunal has committed a gross error in not analysing the material evidence placed on record and considered exorbitant disability on the basis of the opinion expressed by the doctor - PW3 who never treated the claimant and who was not made a proper clinical examination of the claimant and has opined disability to both the limbs at 63% and whole body disability 31% which is against the guidelines prescribed for calculating functional disability or physical disability. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 6. It is also contended that the tribunal has failed to notice that the doctor himself as stated that the fractures are united. Therefore the disability assessed by the doctor is incorrect so also the same having been accepted by the tribunal is erroneous and arbitrary. 7. It is also contended by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation under the head pain and suffering so also there is no requirement of future medical expenses and the income during the laid up period is also exorbitant. On these grounds he seeks to allow his appeal consequently set aside the impugned judgement and award passed by the tribunal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contends that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is not satisfactory, however the claimant since has not preferred any appeal, sustains the order and seeks dismissal of the appeal. Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal has in fact failed to award future - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 prospects. It is a clear opinion expressed by the doctor who is PW3 with regard to shortening of 2 cms in the left leg. 9. It is also stated that the claimant was working as a maid and now it is inconvenient for her to do daily chores as she was doing prior to the occurrence of accident. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the age of the claimant is 38 years as per the wound certificate and the discharge certificate therefore the tribunal has committed an error in taking the age at 35 years and thereby multiplier of 16 is erroneous and the same would have to get reduced to 15. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the Insurance Company has not taken up this plea before the tribunal with regard to the age so also there is no specific cross examination of age being shown on the lesser side in the claim petition and in the affidavit by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 leading evidence. Therefore he sustains the order of the tribunal. On these grounds he seeks to dismiss the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and the respondent - claimant. 13. The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident are proved and established by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Negligence has been rightly attributed against the rider of the offending vehicle and consequently the owner and since policy being in force, liability is fixed on the Insurance Company. 14. Coming to the question of age, avocation, disability appropriate multiplier and quantum of compensation in view of the claimant producing the wound certificate and the discharge certificate where her age is shown as 38 years and the same would have to be taken - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 as it is the document of the claimant himself. Age is taken at 38 years as against 35 years. 15. Income is taken at Rs.10,000/- same is retained as there is no cross appeal preferred by the claimant. 16. Doctor has been examined as PW.3 who has opined disability to an extent of 63% to both limbs and whole body disability at 31%. There are 3 injuries sustained by the claimant out of which injury nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. Admittedly, the claimant was working as a maid servant involving physical activities on a daily basis. 17. There is a shortening of 2 centimetres of the left leg. The tribunal has accepted the whole body disability of 31% expressed by the doctor who is an expert in the field of medicine and a government doctor. 18. Though vehement contention is put forth by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 disability assessed is on the higher side. In view of the tribunal not awarding future prospects for the present disability of 31% this Court deems it appropriate to retain the same at 31% as just and reasonable compensation requires to be awarded in the road traffic motor accident cases. Hence, disability of 31 % is retained. 19. Therefore, the loss of future earning due to disability would get modified in view of this Court taking the age as 38 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case would be 15. Under the circumstances, Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 15 X 31% would be Rs.5,58,000/- as against Rs.5,95,200/- 20. Towards pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- is retained. Medical expenses of Rs.2,68,343/- is retained. Future medical expenses at Rs.25,000/- is retained. Towards food conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses Rs.20,000/- is retained, towards loss of income during laid up period Rs.50,000/- is retained, towards loss of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 amenities in life/Life comforts and expectancy of life/marriage prospectus Rs.30,000/- is retained. 21. In view of the above discussions, appellant shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,11,343/- as against Rs.10,48,543/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of future earnings due to disability 5,58,000.00 Pain and sufferings 60,000.00 Medical expenses 2,68,343.00 Future Medical Expenses 25,000.00 Conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses 20,000.00 Loss of income during laid up period 50,000.00 Loss of amenities in life/Life comforts and expectancy of life/marriage prospectus 30,000.00 TOTAL 10,11,343-00 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 22. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Insurance company that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding interest at 9% per annum the same will have to be reduced to 6% per annum. The interest component shall not be applicable to the future medical expenses. 23. Under the circumstances, I pass the following. ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award passed by the tribunal is modified; iii) Appellant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,11,343/- as against Rs.10,48,543/-. Interest is reduced to 6% per annum. iv) Balance compensation shall be paid within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. v) Tribunal shall disburse the balance amount in favour of the claimant on proper identification by - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7557 MFA No. 5265 of 2019 way of electronic transfer on the claimant producing relevant bank details. vi) Registry shall transmit the amount deposited by the appellant before this court to the jurisdiction tribunal for disbursal and release as per the order. vii) Trial court records shall also be transmitted to the jurisdiction tribunal. viii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:SNN