- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4148 OF 2020(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3213 OF 2020(MV-I) IN MFA No. 4148/2020 BETWEEN: SMT. SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46/B, 2ND CROSS, 10TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 078. …APPELLANT (BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.186/7, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU -560 027. 2. KOLLU SUBHASHCANDRA BOSE, S/O K. LAXMI NAIDU, MAJOR, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) NO.6-4-161, MARUTHI NAGAR, ANANTAPURA-515 001, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 3. SRI CHETAN M., S/O MUTHURAJAPPA, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 MAJOR, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) NO.44, 1ST CROSS, WATER TANK ROAD, YADALAM NAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O/D 08.12.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED; V/O/D 07.01.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.7602/2017 BY THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU AND MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU. IN MFA NO. 3213/2020 BETWEEN: SMT. LAVANYA S., W/O GURURAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46/B, 2ND CROSS, 10TH MAIN, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 078. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.186/7, GROUND FLOOR, 1st CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. KOLLU SUBHASCHANDRA BOSE, S/O K. LAXMI NAIDU, MAJOR, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) NO.6-4-161, MARUTHI NAGAR, ANANTAPURA-515 001, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 3. SRI CHETAN M., S/O MUTHURAJAPPA, MAJOR. (AGE NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT) NO.44, 1ST CROSS, WATER TANK ROAD, YADALAM NAGAR, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 061. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O/D 21.11.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED; V/O/D 07.01.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.7601/2017 BY THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU AND MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BENGALURU. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru and Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC Nos.7601/2017 and 7602/2017. These appeals are founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: That on 14.07.2017 at about 3.45 a.m., the claimants in both cases were travelling in a Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KA.13/B.2191, when the said tempo traveller reached near NVM Kalyana Mantapa, Kogilu Cross, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.AP.02/TB.1244, which was moving ahead, suddenly and abruptly stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road without providing any signal or indication, due to which the tempo traveller, which was trailing behind dashed against the rear portion of the lorry. Due to the said impact, the claimants sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimants were shifted to Profile Nursing Home, wherein, first aid treatment was given and thereafter, to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, they took treatment. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 3.1 The claimants, namely Smt.Lavanya S. and Smt.Sarojamma, aged 32 years and 55 years, respectively, suffered injuries in the road traffic accident. It is the case of Smt.Lavanya S. that she suffered a fracture of the ankle as she was working as a Tailor; she suffered a loss of income and was unable to continue her work due to the fractures and injuries that occurred in the accident. 3.2 It is the case of Smt.Sarojamma that she suffered serious injuries like fracture of T5 and T6 compression with spinal cord compression and according to the learned counsel for claimants, she has suffered paraplegia and therefore, 100% disability. Hence, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3.3 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC No.7601/2017 and Rs.12,97,343/- with interest @ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 6% p.a. in MVC No.7602/2017 from the date of petition till its realization. The tribunal fixed joint liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2 to an extent of 20% and fixed the liability against respondent No.3 at 80% and directed both the parties, i.e., the respondents, to pay compensation to the claimants. The tribunal also passed an order that if the respondents fail to pay the compensation amount, the claimants were entitled to recover the same from any of the respondents. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for claimants that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel in the case of Smt.Sarojamma, where she has suffered 100% paraplegia, that the income assessed is on the lower side. The tribunal has failed to award future prospects, so also - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 the multiplier adopted is also erroneous, as the multiplier is required to be taken at 11 rather than 9 on the ground that as on the date of occurrence of the accident, the claimant-Sarojamma was aged 55 years, but at the time of recording the evidence in her affidavit, she stated that her age was 56 years, which is erroneously taken by the tribunal. Therefore, he seeks the age to be taken at 55 years and the multiplier to be adopted at '11'. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in the case of Smt.Sarojamma, as she has suffered 100% disability due to paraplegia, she would require one attendant during her entire lifetime to take care of her and compensation has not been awarded for an attendant specifically, so also the tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation under other heads also. 4.1 It is also contended by the learned counsel that in the case of Smt.Lavanya S., though she may not be disabled, she has suffered injuries and she would not be able to do her regular work as a Tailor. Hence, marginal - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 enhancement is also required in this case. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation in both the appeals. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the tribunal is justified in fixing the liability of 80% against the owner of the tempo traveller. Though the Insurance Company has not questioned the said order, he sustains the order passed by the tribunal with regard to liability of 20% as against the owner and insurer of the lorry and 80% as against the owner of the tempo traveller. Learned counsel also sustains the judgment and award passed by the tribunal with regard to compensation on several heads. He further contends that no amount is required to be enhanced in the case of Smt.Lavanya S., where she has suffered minor injuries, there is no disability and no evidence of the Doctor is adduced. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeals. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 6. Heard learned counsel for claimants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company, a short points that would arise for consideration in these two appeals: “(i) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? (ii) If so, what amount? 7. Having perused the impugned judgment and award, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and injuries sustained by the claimants in the road traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P21. The liability fixed on the lorry and the tempo traveller is also clearly made out by the claimants and so also the same is appreciated by the tribunal and compensation is rightly awarded by fixing the negligence on both the vehicles to an extent of 20% to the owner and insurer of the lorry and 80% to the owner of the tempo traveller. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the negligence fixed by the tribunal against these two vehicles, firstly for the reason that there is no appeal preferred by the Insurance - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 Company of the lorry challenging the same and secondly, for the reason that the owner of the tempo traveller has not questioned the impugned order. In MVC No.7601/2017 8. It is the case of the claimant-Lavanya S., who sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. The tribunal has considered all aspects and awarded Rs.40,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the reasoning of the tribunal. However, considering the fact that the claimant is a Tailor by profession, no material is produced before the Court. Hence, an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded. In all, the claimant shall be entitled for a compensation of Rs.65,000/-. In MVC No.7602/2017 9. Now coming to the aspect of age, multiplier, avocation, income and disability, it is stated that the age of the claimant was 55 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident. It is also stated that she was working as a - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 Coolie and was earning Rs.12,000/-, but as no material is placed on record, the tribunal taken the income of the claimant to be Rs.8,000/- per month. But, I am afraid the same is not correct and not commensurate to the notional income chart. Therefore, the income requires to be enhanced to Rs.11,000/- per month as per the notional income chart. The appropriate multiplier would have to be taken at '11' for the said age rather than 9, taken by the tribunal on the premise that in the affidavit evidence contained her age is shown to be 56 years and the same was taken earlier at the time of recording the evidence. The tribunal has failed to award future prospects. Therefore, considering the age of the claimant to be 55 years, future prospects requires to be taken at 10%. Accordingly, it is awarded. The tribunal on appreciation of the evidence of the Doctor-PW.3 has opined disability to an extent of 100%, taking the paraplegia into consideration and absolutely no sensation below the level of the rib cage, no bladder control and no bowel control and the same is retained. Hence, the disability taken at - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 100% is sustained. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.15,97,200/- (Rs.11,000/- + 10% = Rs.12,100/- x 12 x 11 x 100%) as against Rs.8,64,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 9.1 The tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,13,243/- towards medical expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 9.2 The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards food and nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. However, I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.90,000/- under this head. 9.3 The tribunal awarded Rs.80,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. However, I deem it appropriate to award an additional amount of Rs.20,000/-. In all, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under this head. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 9.4 It is seen that the tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation to an attendant that would be required for the claimant-Sarojamma during her entire lifetime due to paraplegia, as she would not be able to do any of her work by herself, including basic small, simple things. Therefore, the attendant would have to assist the claimant for her entire remaining life. Therefore, for consideration of compensation on the ground of an attendant for an entire lifetime, this Court deems it appropriate to award 25% of the income, i.e., Rs.11,000/- x 25% = Rs.2,750/-. The same would be taken as the income for awarding compensation under the head an attendant for the entire lifetime would be Rs.3,63,000/- (Rs.2,750/- x 12 x 11). 9.5 In view of the above, the claimant in MVC No.7602/2017 would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.24,63,443/- as against Rs.12,97,343/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Pain and suffering 1,00,000-00 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 Medical expenses 2,13,243-00 Food and nourishment and conveyance charges 90,000-00 Loss of income due to disability 15,97,200-00 Loss of amenities in life 1,00,000-00 Attendant for the entire lifetime 3,63,000-00 TOTAL 24,63,443-00 10. Now coming to the aspect of liability, the tribunal fixed the joint liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the owner and insurer of the lorry at 20% and 80% fixed on the owner of the tempo traveller, are retained. However, the tribunal has made an order in favour of the claimants that if any of the respondents fail to pay compensation, the claimants would be entitled to recover the same from one of the respondents. This order though not questioned by the aggrieved persons, i.e., the owner or insurer of both the offending vehicles, the same is retained. Since the owner of the tempo traveller is not before this Court despite service of notice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the owner of the lorry and insurer of the lorry, to make good the entire payment, and the Insurance - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 Company of the lorry would be entitled to recover the compensation of 80% fixed on the tempo traveller in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 17.10.2019 passed in MVC Nos.7601/2017 and 7602/2017 by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru and Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru, is modified; iii) The claimant in MVC No.7601/2017 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.65,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; iv) The claimant in MVC No.7602/2017 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.24,63,443/- as against Rs.12,97,343/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:7922 MFA No. 4148 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3213 of 2020 vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants upon proper verification; vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith. viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact; ix) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT:SNN