- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8367 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. CHUDAMANI W/O SEETHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.480, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BHAVANINAGAR, NEAR KEMPEGOWDA EEJIKOLA, BANGALORE-560 019. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAMAN VANKDARI M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER M/S. THE NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MRS. ASHWATHAMMA V., W/O V.RAMU, NO. E58, RBI QUARTERS, OSBORNE ROAD, SHIVANCHETTY GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1; Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 V/O DATED 01.02.2023 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1631/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, BENGALURU, 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 MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the claimant/appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 26.03.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.1631/2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case leading upto filing of the present appeal are; (a). That on 07.12.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., claimant/appellant herein along with one Smt. Meenakshi was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 proceeding in a Maruthi Omni car bearing No.KA-41-M-284 towards Bangalore on Bangalore - Magadi Road. When they reached near Tippagondanahalli, due to high speed and negligent driving of the car by the driver, it lost control and toppled, as a result of which claimant/appellant herein and the other inmates of the car sustained grievous and simple injuries. (b). Claimant/appellant herein was treated as in-patient at Hosmat Hospital and spent huge amount towards the treatment and other incidental expenses. Thereupon, claimant/appellant herein filed claim petition in M.V.C No.1631/2013 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- contending that due to the injuries suffered in the accident her left hand has been amputated and she is unable to do her daily work as she was doing prior to the accident and that she requires constant assistance in doing her daily routine work and also requires constant medication/treatment. (c). On service of summons, the respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1-Insurance company had appeared through advocate and filed statement of objections denying the petition - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 averments and involvement of vehicle in the said accident. It is contended that the Maruthi Omni car involved in the accident was carrying the persons beyond the seating capacity. As such, there was a violation of the condition of terms of the policy and the respondent-Insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. Other averments regarding injuries and disabilities suffered by the claimant/appellant herein is also denied. 3. Based on the pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues: '' 1) Whether petitioners prove that on 07.12.2012 at about 10:30 p.m. on Bengaluru-Magadi Main Road, Tippagondanahalli, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent act of driver of Maruthi Omni Car bearing registration No.KA-41-M-284, had applied sudden brake, as such, petitioners suffered injury in the accident? 2) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much? 3) What order or award?'' 4. Claimant/appellant herein examined herself as PW.1 and the treating doctors have been examined as PW.3 and PW.4 and exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 in support of her case. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 5. The Tribunal on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence came to the conclusion that the claimant/appellant herein suffered and sustained injuries due to the alleged accident that was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruthi Omni car and accordingly held that the claimant/appellant herein is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,92,200/- with interest of 8% per anum from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant/appellant herein is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant herein submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and on lesser side. That though the disabilities is assessed at 88%, the Tribunal has erroneously taken the same at 30%. That the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation on other heads requiring enhancement of the same. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Insurance Company submitted that the assessment of the disabilities and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. That there was violation of terms of policy by carrying inmates more - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 than seating capacity and that there are no grounds made out warranting enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. Accident in question is not in dispute. Injuries suffered by the claimant/appellant herein resulting in amputation of her left hand is also not in dispute. The offending vehicle having been insured with the respondent No.1-Insurance Company is also not in dispute. The respondent No.1-Insurance Company however has contended that there was breach of terms of policy by the insured by carrying more number of persons beyond the seating capacity. Therefore the points requiring consideration are with regard to assessment of the disability, quantum of compensation and the liability. 10. As per the wound certificate produced at Ex.P4, the claimant/appellant herein has suffered crush injury on the left arm with traumatic amputation on mid arm. The PW.3 treating Doctor has deposed that the claimant/appellant herein has suffered 88% disability on left upper limb and that there is a recommendation for prosthesis arm. The Tribunal has taken whole body disability at 30%. In the case of amputation of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 upper limbs (either arm), even as per the Schedule Injuries as provided under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, percentage of loss of earning capacity on account of the injuries of this nature is assessed at 80%. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant/appellant herein at Rs.6,000/-. The claimant/appellant herein is a home maker, the income is therefore as to be taken as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident is of the year 2012 the notional income as per the chart is to be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. Since the age of the claimant/appellant herein is 50 years, 10% of the said income is to be added towards future prospects. Disability is to be assessed at 80%. The loss of monthly income would therefore be Rs.7,000/- + 10%= 7,700X80% = Rs.6,160/-. Considering the age of the claimant/appellant herein multiplier of 13 needs to be applied. Calculated as above, loss of future income would be Rs.6,160X12X13=Rs.9,60,960/-. 11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the pain and suffering and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 12. Compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- is awarded under the head medical expenses and same is retained as it is. 13. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards the prosthesis arm which is enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities, considering the amputation of hand this Court awards Rs.1,00,000/- under the said heading. 15. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head Conveyance. This Court awards Rs.50,000/- under the said heading. 16. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the heading disfigurement. This Court awards Rs.1,00,000/- under the said heading. 17. The Tribunal has not awarded loss of income during the laid up period. Considering the injuries suffered and the treatment undergone, the claimant must have been advised rest for three months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.21,000/- is awarded under the said heading. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 18. Thus the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.9,81,760/- as under: Sl.No. Head Amount 1. Towards loss of future income Rs.9,60,960/- 2. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,42,000/- 3 Towards pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 4 Towards the prosthesis arm Rs.3,00,000/- 5. Towards the loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- 6. Towards the Conveyance Rs.50,000/- 7. Towards the disfigurement Rs.1,00,000/- 8. Towards the during the laid up period Rs.21,000/- Total Rs.17,73,960/- Less awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,92,200/- Enhanced by Rs.9,81,760/- 19. As regards the contentions of the respondent No.1- Insurance Company of more persons being carried in the offending Omni car beyond the seating capacity is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 647 has held that mere factum of carrying more passengers than - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 the permitted seating capacity by the insured does not amount to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy so as to allow the insurer to eschew its liability. 20. It is also settled law that in the case of injuries to the persons who are being carried beyond the seating capacity, the highest amount of compensation payable shall be paid at the first instance, residue, if any, beyond the insured amount be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. {National Insurance Company Vs. Baljit Kaur reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1} and { United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. K.M. Poonam reported in (2015)15 SCC 297}. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i). The appeal is partly allowed. (ii). Claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,73,960/-. Thus, the Compensation awarded to the claimant/appellant herein is enhanced by Rs.9,81,760/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13249-DB MFA No. 8367 of 2015 (iii). Respondent No.1-Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv). After depositing such amount, respondent No.1 is entitled to recover the share of liability of respondent No.2. (v). Award of the Tribunal with regard to release of the amount and investment is maintained. (vi). This Court places on record its appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri. Naman Vankdari M, learned Standing Counsel of High Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36