- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6770 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI GOVINDA RAJE URS S/O DASAPPA RAJE URS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONGANURU VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M B RAGHU S/O M.H BYRAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.37, NEAR PETROL BUNK, CHANDAPURA ROAD, ANEKAL- 562 100 BANGALORE DISTRICT. 2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD S.M. TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560011 REP: BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 26.07.2017, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED11.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.337/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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 claimant against judgment and award dated 11.03.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in M.V.C.No.337/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2011, around 05.30 a.m., the claimant was boarding a bus bearing registration No.KA-55-360 at Honganuru Bus stand. At that time, the driver of the bus negligently drove the bus, as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He initially took treatment at Government Hospital, Channapatna. Thereafter, he was shifted to NIMHANS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 Bengaluru and Maharaja Agrasena Hospital, Bengaluru where he remained as an inpatient for about 25 days. He had spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 36 years, working as a Supervisor in a transport company and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the accident he has suffered permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. For these reasons, he is seeking a compensation of Rs.4,00,000. 4. Respondent-insurer denied the contentions of the claimant and denied its liability to pay the compensation. On these reasons, sought for dismissal of claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for its determination. 6. The Claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses PW.1 and PW.2 and marked 15 documents, as per Ex.P1 to P15. 7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 the bus by its driver and awarded following amount of compensation: Sl.No Heads Amount 1. Medical Treatment Rs.19,696/-. 2. Attendant Charges Rs.1,700/-. 3. Pain and Sufferings Rs.20,000/- 4. Loss of amenities in future life Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.61,396/- Rounded to Rs.61,400/- 8. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 9. Heard arguments of learned counsels appearing for the both the side. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW.2 and did not award compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to claimants permanent disability. It is further contended that the amount awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, the claimant seeks for enhancement of the compensation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and submits that the evidence of PW.2 is not reliable. The incident occurred in the year 2011 and the claimant was examined in the year 2014. Despite the line gap, he withstood the cross examination and he remembered the manner in which the accident occurred and also answered all the questions asked in the cross examination. This itself reveals that the injury had not affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal considered this fact and rightly did not award compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. The fact of accident and injuries sustained by the claimant are not seriously disputed. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. 13. That claimant has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P6, to show that he sustained following injuries: (1). Abrasions seen in forehead, frontal area with deep abraded 12X7 cms. (2). Bleeding from both the nostrils. (3). Bleeding from mouth. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 14. He has also produced the discharge summary as per Ex.P8. In addition, he has also produced other medical records; However, they do not appear to be relevant. 15. In the case file, there is a CT scan of the brain which was not marked before the Tribunal. It indicates that the petitioner had sustained few fractures of facial bones. However, these facts were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the claimant. Of course, it is an unmarked document. However, for awarding just and reasonable compensation, it needs to be considered. 16. In the evidence of PW2, he has narrated the complaints of the claimant at paragraph No.2. The said facts indicate that the claimant has lost some of the abilities, but certainly, they are not functional disabilities. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, PW1 appeared before the Court three years, after the accident and withstood the cross examination. He was able to recall the event which had occurred about 3 years earlier. Even in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 case file, the record produced regarding the Neuro behavioural and cognitive assessment, it indicates that the claimant was normal except for a few tests. The cognitive disability assessed by the concerned doctor, Dr.Pratibha Sharan, shows that he has suffered permanent disability of 25% and in the subsequent pages, it is considered as 39.44% including other disabilities. In the evidence, PW1 has not disclosed how far it has affected his earning capacity. Considering these tests, the Tribunal rightly rejected the contentions of the claimant that it affected his earning capacity. Mere physical disability is not sufficient and it should be a functional disability that affecting earning capacity of the claimant. 17. Considering the materials available on record, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which requires enhancement. Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded: Sl.No Heads Amount 1. Medical Expenses Rs.19,696/-. 2. Special diet, Attendant and Conveyance Charges Rs.30,000/-. 3. Pain and Sufferings Rs.50,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 4. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.1,99,696/- (-) Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.61,400/- Enhanced Award Rs.1,38,296/- Rounded to Rs.1,39,000/- 18. Claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay compensation. 19. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl., MACT, Channapatna, in MVC.No.337/2011 dated 11.03.2015 is modified; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21929 MFA No. 6770 of 2015 iii. The claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. iv. Respondent No.2–Insurance company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v. Enhanced amount is marginal. Hence, entire enhanced amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification. vi. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22