- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17861 MFA No. 3667 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3667 OF 2023(MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GIC LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB NO.5, III FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, DRDO COMPOUND , C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU- 560001. NOW WILL BE REPRESENTED BY SHRIRAM GIC. LTD., NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE, BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, OPP. BANNERGHATTA ROAD, IIMB POST, BENGALURU-560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K.S RAGHAVENDRA, S/O LATE SHYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KURUVEGERE VILLAGE, GANTAGANAHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. RAGHU G.R., S/O. G.N. RAMAKRISHNA, BALAJI NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, ASHOKNAGARA, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR D.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17861 MFA No. 3667 of 2023 V/O/DATED 20.07.2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC. NO.7371/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.38,23,793/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.7371/2016 dated 01.10.2022 by the I Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, the appellant/Insurance company is before this Court questioning the liability. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.12.2013 at about 8.30 a.m., the claimant was travelling from Doddaballapura to T. Narasipura in Tata Indica Car, when he reached Kengeri Mysuru Road Bridge at Nice Road, at that time the driver of Lorry drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. Due to which, his car turtled and fell down and sustained traumatic brain injury. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17861 MFA No. 3667 of 2023 Immediately, he was shifted to BGS Global Hospital and then shifted to various hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. The claimant has spent Rs.20,00,000/- towards medicines, treatment, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. According to him, he was doing contract work and earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. He had suffered permanent disability because of these injuries. The Tribunal had held that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and granted the compensation as per the table given below: 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal without there Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Amount 1. Towards injury pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses Rs.18,50,393/- 3. Towards food and extra nourishment and medical attendant Rs.7,88,200/- 4. Towards conveyance Rs.30,000/- 5. Towards loss of future earning Rs.10,75,200/- 6. Deprivation of future amenities Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.38,23,793/- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17861 MFA No. 3667 of 2023 being any evidence has granted an amount of Rs.18,50,393/- towards medical bills and Rs.7,88,200/- towards food, nourishment, medical and attendant charges and those amounts are on the higher side and granting compensation of an amount of Rs.38,23,793/- is without any basis and contrary to the material on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ claimant submits that the claimant had sustained 80% disability. From the date of accident he is completely not able to speak and he is completely confined to the wheelchair. It is submitted that the Tribunal on all the heads of compensation had rightly granted the amount and he completely requires a person to take care of his day to day needs and in fact, the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company are that the medical expenses are given and some of the bills are on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17861 MFA No. 3667 of 2023 white papers. Towards food, extra nourishment and for the days he was in the hospital an amount of Rs.7,88,200/- is granted by the Tribunal. This Court has perused the entire record. This is a case where the claimant had sustained 80% disability. In fact, this is a case where he requires constant attendant, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases, where the disability is 100% or the case where they are confined to the wheelchair and they require somebody's assistance, taking the notional income and by granting the multiplier, the Hon’ble Apex Court had granted the attendant charges. If the same attendant charges are granted, it would be much more than what has been granted by the Tribunal and he was there in the hospital for a period of 244 days, even on that count also another head he would be entitled for the amount. Looking from any angles even if the entire amount is reassessed it would be much more than what had been granted by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, considering the injuries and the disability, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17861 MFA No. 3667 of 2023 i. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal. ii. The amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 10 years and the claimant is entitled for the interest from the same. iii. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iv. The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining amount, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. v. No costs. vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53