- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2890 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.,LTD., SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE: T.P. HUB NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 025 BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA, R/A HANGALA VILLGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT- 571 111. 2. SRI. K.T. ISHAQ, MAJOR , S/O ASSAINER, R/AT NO.7/56, MASANAGUDI BAZAAR, MASANAGUDI POST, NILGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU- 626 127. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.412/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,41,650/- WITH CURRENT AND FUTURE INTEREST @ 9% P.A, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF AWARD AMOUNT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 27th November 2014, passed by the learned District Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Chamarajanagar, (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.412/2013. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 29.10.2013, around 4.20 p.m., the claimant was going to Hangala village in his autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-10- 6179. When he reached near Ambedkar Bhavan in Gundlupet-Ooty road, a TATA Turbo Goods Tempo bearing registration No.TN-43-Z-8830 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant's vehicle, as a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was initially taken to the Government Hospital, Gundlupet for treatment. Thereafter, for better treatment, he was shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and then to J.S.S. Hospital, Mysuru. He underwent surgery and he has suffered disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 4. It is the further contention of the claimant that he was aged about 55 years. He was driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He has spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.11,30,000/-. 5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company denied petition averments. It further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. It also disowned its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and prayed to dismiss petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant examined two witnesses as PW-1 and CW-1 and marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-7 and Exs.C-1 and C-2. The respondents have not led any evidence. 7. After hearing of the parties and appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of a sum of Rs.12,41,650/- under the following heads : Particulars Amount in Rs. Medical expenses 72,000/- Pain and sufferings 34,000/- Future medical expenses 25,000/- Permanent disability 11,01,600/- Food and nutrition 2,750/- Car Rent (traveling expenses) 2,000/- Medical attendant expenses 4,300/- Total 12,41,650/- The same is challenged by the insurer in this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 8. I have heard the arguments. And perused the materials placed before this court. 9. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending Tempo. It assessed income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month, age of the claimant as 55 years, his disability as 85% to the whole body, applied the multiplier of `18' and awarded the compensation. 10. There is no serious dispute regarding fact of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident. Hence, no need to reconsider. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company vehemently contended that Tribunal has assessed the disability at 85% to the whole body, which is highly exorbitant and without any basis. He fairly submits that, looking at the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment taken and the evidence of doctor CW-1, the disability might be around 15% to 20% and not more than - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 that. He further submits that the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a., which is highly excessive with these reasons prayed to recalculate compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contends that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence placed on record, and considering the evidence of PW-1, it has rightly held that the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 85%, which does not call for any interference. He has also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on the lower side. Due to poverty of the claimant, he could not file an appeal before this Court. Considering the said aspects, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. From rival contentions of the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: " Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 14. PW-1 is the claimant. He has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition in his evidence. CW-1, the treating doctor, was examined through a Court Commission. In his evidence, he spoke about the difficulties faced by claimant and opined that the disability is the claimant's right leg is to an extent of 30%. Considering the instability of right hand, he assessed the disability at 55%. Considering the same, the Tribunal has assessed the total disability at 85%. 15. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the said calculation made by the Tribunal is incorrect. CW-1 has not clearly specified whether the disability of 30% pertains to the whole body or to the right upper limb. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is damage to the ligament of the right knee and that the claimant has been suffering from neurological problem. However, CW-1, is not an expert Neuro-Surgeon, on the contrary, he is an Orthopaedician. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 16. Considering the entire evidence of CW-1, it could be safely concluded that the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to the whole body to an extent of 20% to 25%. Accordingly, the functional disability is assessed as 25% to the whole body. 17. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month. It is true that there are no materials to believe that claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as contended by him. Following the chart of notional income prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income of the claimant is considered as Rs.8,000/- per month. 18. There is no serious dispute regarding age of the claimant and the multiplier applicable to the facts of the present case. On the basis of the said factors, amount of compensation is recalculated under the head `loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability'. The remaining amount of compensation awarded by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 19. For the aforesaid discussion, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount in Rs. Medical expenses 72,000/- Pain and sufferings 34,000/- Future medical expenses 25,000/- Loss of future earning capacity due to disability (Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 18 x 25%) 4,32,000/- Food and nutrition 2,750/- Conveyance expenses 2,000/- Medical and attendant charges 4,300/- Total 5,72,050/- amount awarded by the Tribunal is - 12,41,650/- 20. It is not in dispute that appellant-insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest awarded by the Tribunal is to be modified. Thus, the claimant is entitled - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 for interest at the rate of Rs.6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the above point is answered partly in the affirmative. 21. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 27th November 2014, passed in MVC.No.412/2013, by the District Judge and Member, M.A.C.T., Chamarajanagar, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,72,050/- as against Rs.12,41,650/-, awarded by the tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) Appellant - Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of the award. v) Considering the contentions of the parties and prayer of the respondent/claimant, 50% of the compensation amount shall be - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20425 MFA No. 2890 of 2015 released in favour of the claimant and remaining 50% of the amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank of the choice of the claimant for a period of two years. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-insurer before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34