- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100137 OF 2020 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104669 OF 2019 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 100137 OF 2020 BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., R/O.SRI. AVENUE COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. OLD DHO OFFICE, NEAR OLD DSP CIRCLE, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD, REPTD BY: AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN R.O. BY DEPUTY MANAGER R.O. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.HOLIYAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA HOLENNAVAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NAGANR, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582206. 2. MANJUNATH S/O. BABU @ BABURAO YALIGAR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, (NOW NIL), R/O .GARAG, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANTH R LATUR) Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, IN MFA NO. 104669 OF 2019 BETWEEN: MANJUNATH S/O. BABU BABURAO YALIGAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, NOW NIL, R/O: GARAG, PIN: 580010, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HOLIYAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA HOLENNAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NAGANUR, PIN: 5822016, TQ: NAVALGUOND, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., R/O. SRI.AVENUE COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, OPP: OLD D.H.O. OFFICE, NEAR OLD D.S.P. CIRCLE, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD, PIN: 580002, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTH R LATUR FOR R2 NOTICE SERVED WITH R1 THIS MFA FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO, ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. DHARWAD, IN MVC NO- 819/2017 DATED 26.09.2019. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 26.9.2019 passed in MVC No.819/2017 by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT Dharwad (for short “the Tribunal”). MFA No.104669/2019 is filed by the claimant/petitioner in MVC No.819/2017 seeking enhancement of the compensation, whereas MFA No.100137/2020 is filed by Respondent No.2/the Insurance Company questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal. 2. As both these appeals are arising out of a single judgment, with consent of both the side these two appeals are taken up for disposal together. 3. Parties to these appeals are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 4. Brief and relevant facts as the stated by the Claimant/petitioner before the Tribunal by filing a petition - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are as under. 5. According to the claimant/petitioner, on 22.07.2017 at 7.a.m, when he was standing in front of Turumuri’s house compound, at that time, a Tata Tipper bearing Registration No. KA-25/AA-1505 came from the opposite direction towards Yeligar plots on Dharwad-Garag Road driven by its driver in high speed in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and driver of the said vehicle lost control and dashed to the compound wall. As a result of the same, as the claimant was standing near the compound wall, sustained grievous injuries all over the body. With regard to the said accident, a crime was registered against the offending vehicle before the Garag Police Station in Crime No.103/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. 6. It is the case of the claimant that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Dr.S.R Ramanagoudar Hospital, Dharwad. There he took first aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to KLE’s Prabhakar Kore Hospital, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 Belagavi for further treatment. He was in the said hospital as an inpatient till 27.7.2017. He underwent surgeries during his stay in the hospital as inpatient. His right hand was amputated above the elbow. According to him, he has spent more than Rs.3 lakhs towards his medical and other incidental expenses. Due to this, he is unable to attend his day-to-day activities without the support of the other person. He has become disabled. Even as on the date of filing of this petition, he was under treatment. 7. It is stated that, prior to the accident, claimant was engaged in a private work at Sri. Sai Engineers, Belur Industrial Area, Dharwad and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. He used to contribute his income towards maintenance of his family. Because of this accident, his entire family members are put to greater hardship and difficulty. Himself and his family members are suffering physically, mentally as well as financially and it has become hard to eke out his livelihood. As the accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tipper lorry by its driver, respondent No.1 being - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 the owner of the said vehicle and respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the said vehicle jointly and severally are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.25 lakhs together with interest @8% p.a. 8. Before the Tribunal, both respondents appeared and resisted the claim petition by filing independent objection statement. Both the respondents denied about occurrence of the accident, avocation of the petitioner/claimant, so also his income and spending of money towards medical expenses. As per the contentions of Respondent No.1, the said accident has not taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending tipper lorry by its driver. As on the date of the accident, Insurance policy was in force. Therefore, it is respondent No.2 who has to deposit the compensation. Where as, the respondent No.2 contends that the claimant has not sustained any injuries in the manner stated in the claim petition. There is violation of the policy conditions by respondent No.1 by entrusting vehicle to the person who was not holding the valid driving - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 license. Amongst Other grounds, both the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, learned Tribunal framed in all three relevant issues. Before the Tribunal, to substantiate his case, claimant himself entered the witness box as PW.1 and also examined Dr.S.S. Ramanagoudar as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P20 closed claimant’s evidence. 10. The respondents have not lead any oral evidence. With the consent of both the side, Ex.R1-Insurance Policy came to be marked in respect of the offending vehicle. On closure of evidence of both the side, the learned Tribunal heard the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending TATA Tipper by its driver and awarded the compensation as under: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 Sl.No Heads Amount (Rs.) 1. Pain, shock and suffering 1,00,000/- 2. Loss of Amenities 1,00,000/- 3. Medical expenses 2,82,200/- 4. Future medical expenses 50,000/- 5. Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000/- 6. Loss of future income 15,55,200/- Total = 21,87,400/- 11. The Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the compensation on both the respondents, however, directed Respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation by holding that, there is no violation of any of the policy conditions and by applying the law of indemnity. Now, the claimant has preferred the appeal seeking enhancement, where as the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 challenged the award on the ground of liability as well as quantum. 12. The learned counsel for claimant would submit that, the amount so awarded by the Tribunal is very meager. The claimant has lost his right hand above the elbow and he has suffered permanent disability. The claimant has spent substantial money towards medical expenses and still he is under treatment. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that, in view of losing a job by the claimant who - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 was working in an engineering Company now the entire family of the claimant is suffering a lot. He being a bachelor person aged 24 years at the time of accident; has lost his marriage prospects also. According to him, whatever the compensation so prayed by the claimant ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, as per the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as by citing a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarnam Singh v/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others in Civil Appeal No.3900/2023 decided on July 4, 2023 reported in 2023 live law (SC) 498 submits that, as the claimant is entitled for adequate and reasonable compensation, he prays to award compensation as claimed in the claim petition. 13. As against this, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company with all vehemence submits that, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence placed on record by the Insurance Company and though the policy was in force, driver of the said vehicle was not holding the effective driving license and this respondent No.1 being the owner of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 the said vehicle has entrusted the said vehicle to the person who was not holding the effective driving license. In addition to the grounds urged in the appeal memo, it is submitted that, the documents produced by the claimant are concocted and fabricated. The amount awarded towards various heads as narrated in the judgment are not proper and they are at higher side. Hence, prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the petition against respondent No.2. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side. Meticulously perused the records. In view of the rival submissions of both the sides, the points that would arise for our consideration are: I. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation as prayed? II. Whether the Insurance Company/ respondent No.2 is absolved of the payment of any compensation as prayed in the appeal memo? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 Point Nos.I and II are discussed together: 15. Sofar as, occurrence of accident on 22/7/2017 at 7:00 a.m. in front of Turumuri’s house compound and dashing of a Tata Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 25/AA-1505 to the compound wall on Dharwad-Gadag Road is concerned, it is not in dispute. However to prove the said fact, the claimant relied upon Exs.P1 to P3, P13 to P15. If these documents are scrupulously perused, based upon the complaint so filed by the complainant, the criminal law was set in motion and panchnama was conducted at the scene of occurrence. Police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. This fact is not denied by the respondent No.1 being the owner of the said Tipper as well as respondent No.2. The Tribunal while considering the said facts regarding accident, has relied upon the evidence of the claimant as well as the documentary evidence so produced by him and has come to a definite conclusion that the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper by its driver owned by - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2. When this fact is duly proved, when the said accident is admitted, documents are admitted, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal is right in holding that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper by its driver. 16. Sofar as injuries suffered by the claimant in the said accident are concerned, the claimant relies upon the Ex.P16 the wound certificate. To know the injuries suffered by the claimant, it is just and proper to narrate the injuries sustained by the claimant as seen in Ex.P16. “1. Slab on the right upper limb after opening. 2. Sutured wound on the right upper arm starting from lower end of arm. Up to the forearm anteriorly up to the hand 8-10 cms swelling +ve elbow dislocated. 3. Radal and ulnar pulsation not felt limb is cold. 4. Rt Brachial artery repair using vinograft done on 22/07/17 5. Above elbow amputation on 24/07/17.” 17. As per the wound certificate, claimant was admitted in the Hospital as inpatient from 22.07.2017 and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 was discharged on 27.07.2017 from KLE Hospital, Belagavi. To show that he has taken treatment in Dr. Prabakar Kore’s, KLE Hospital and Medical Research Centre, he relied upon discharge summary. He was admitted in the hospital with a history of accidental injuries and on investigation the doctor has conducted surgery on his person and there was amputation of his right hand above the elbow as narrated in Ex.P17 the discharge summary. Further the claimant relies upon the photographs at the Ex.P4 and P5 with CD to show the exact amputation of his right hand above the elbow portion. These photographs are not denied by the respondents. 18. It is the specific case of the claimant that, he has spent more than Rs.3 lakhs towards medical expenses. To prove the said fact, he has produced 39 medical bills as per Ex.P8 which shows that he has spent Rs.2,82,197/- towards medical expenses. In addition to these medical expenses, he must have spent some money towards incidental expenses like nutrition, attendant charges, conveyance etc. These documents are accompanied with the prescriptions. He has - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 produced a document issued by KLE Hospital i.e., inpatient record. In this inpatient record, it shows the nature of treatment administered on the claimant in the said KLE Hospital, Belagavi. While marking this document, the respondents have not raised any objections. 19. According to the claimant, he has suffered disability because of this accidental injury. To prove the said fact, he examined Doctor S.S. Ramanagoudar. According to the evidence of this doctor, the claimant was admitted in his hospital on 22.07.2017 and he had sustained crush injury on right elbow with vascular injury. Doctor opined that, this claimant has suffered 80% disability which is physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb. As per his evidence, while conducting the surgery, there was amputation above the elbow and a surgery was conducted on 24.07.2017 and also there was a right brachial artery repair on 22.7.2017 which was failed. The doctor was cross- examined by the respondent No.2 at length but, he has withstood the test of cross-examination. According to him, he himself has clinically examined the claimant and treated - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 him. He has denied all the suggestions directed to him. In support of his evidence, he relied upon Ex.P.19 and 20 the X-ray film and case sheet. As per Sarnam Singh (supra), when permanent disability is attributed of an injured, it affects his functional disability. Therefore, whatever the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal is to be considered as proper percentage of disability. 20. Thus, from the evidence of the doctor as well as the medical records and PW.1, this claimant has suffered 80% disability. He is an young boy of the 24 years as per the evidence brought on record. To show that the claimant initially was working with OPTEC Engineering Private Limited at Thane, the claimant has produced Ex.P9 dated 22.7.2012. His service was confirmed on 22.7.2012. While marking this document, no objection was raised by respondents. That means the claimant was employed prior to the accident. To show that prior to the accident he was working with Sai Engineers, he has produced Ex.P10, salary slip and his total salary is shown as Rs.6,450/- for the year 2016. Further, Rs.11,790/- for the month of January 2017, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 for the month February 2017- Rs.11,715/-, for the month of March 2017 Rs.11,310/-, for the month of April 2017- Rs.12,740/-, for the month of May 2017-Rs.11,485/- and for the month of June 2017-Rs.13,275/- for the month of July 2017, Rs.12,205/- and for the month August 2017- Rs.7835/- is shown. M/s. Sai Engineer's have issued a letter of termination on 1.8.2017 stating that, because of the accident, he has lost his right hand, therefore, he is unable to perform his duties and hence they are bound to terminate the service of the claimant from their organization. Thus, these documents Ex.P9, P10, P11, do demonstrate that prior to the accident this claimant was employed and was drawing a salary from his private employment. There was a gradual increase in his salary. 21. The claimant’s claim that he was drawing Rs.14,000/- per month prior to the accident. But, to prove the said fact except the self-serving evidence of the claimant, no evidence is placed on record by him. Taking into consideration of the previous employment of the claimant in the Engineering Company so also considering facts so - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 narrated by the claimant and based upon the evidence placed by the claimant’s, rightly the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income of Rs.12,000/- per month. We do not find any factual error with regard to the assessment of the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month. As per the judgment Hon’ble Apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., VS. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards future prospects. Though the doctor has opined that there was 80% disability but, it is to a particular limb i.e. to the right hand. Considering the treatment taken by the claimant so also his age etc, the Tribunal has assessed the disability to the extent of 60% disability which in our opinion, is just and proper. Based upon that, the Tribunal has considered the loss of a future income due to disability by applying the proper multiplier i.e., `18’ as the claimant was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. The learned tribunal has awarded the compensation under loss of future income at Rs.15,55,200/- but however, Tribunal has not properly awarded the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 compensation under loss of future income. In view of the judgment in Pranay Sethi supra, as the claimant is aged 24 years, as he was working in private employment, 40% is to be added towards future prospects. Thus, 40% of Rs.12000/- is Rs.4800/- which is to be added to monthly income that comes to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,000/-+Rs.4800/-). Thus, loss of future income is to be calculated as Rs.16800×12×18x60%= Rs.21,77,280/- instead of Rs.15,55,200/- towards loss of future income due to disability. 22. Sofar as compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain, shock and suffering, loss of immunities, medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects, as stated supra, are just and proper. Sofar as compensation towards attendant charges, nutrition, conveyance etc, Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. Taking into consideration of the nature of injury, stay in the hospital and following treatment etc, some amount is to be awarded, hence, claimant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards nutrition, attendant and conveyance - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 charges. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation under these heads. We do not find any factual error in awarding such a compensation so awarded. Therefore, the claimant is held entitled for compensation as under: Sl.No Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of future income due to disability 21,77,280/- 2. Pain, shock and suffering 1,00,000/- 3. Loss of Amenities 1,00,000/- 4. Medical expenses 2,82,200/- 5. Attendant, nutritional and Conveyance charges 20,000/- 6. Future medical expenses 50,000/- 7. Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000/- Total = 28,29,480/- Tribunal awarded compensation 21,87,400/- Enhanced amount 6,42,080/- Rounded off to 6,42,000/- Thus, there shall be enhancement of compensation at Rs.6,42,000/-. 23. The Tribunal has awarded the interest @8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. This rate of interest so awarded appears to be on higher side. Therefore, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 the claimant is held entitled for interest @6% interest on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till its realization. On this ground, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is required to be allowed in-part. Accordingly, it is allowed in-part. 24. Sofar as liability is concerned, as rightly held by the Tribunal; the liability to pay the compensation by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is joint and several. However, as respondent No.2 has admitted the policy and has not produced any document to show about the violation of the policy conditions, the liability of respondent No.1 and 2 to pay the compensation is joint and several. However, the respondent No.2 has to deposit the compensation under law of indemnity within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment before the Tribunal together with accrued interest accrued there on. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 Resultantly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.104669/2019 and appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.100137/2020 are allowed in-part. ii. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 26.09.2019 passed in MVC No.819/2017 passed by the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT Dharwad, is hereby modified and the claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.28,29,480/- as against Rs.21,87,400/- instead of 8% per annum awarded by the Tribunal compensation is thoroughly enhanced by Rs.6,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:661-DB MFA No. 100137 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 104669 of 2019 iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the tribunal within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. iv. There shall be a modified award accordingly. v. The Registry is directed to transmit the amount so deposited by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal forthwith. vi. Transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. vii. Under the circumstance, we pass no orders as to costs. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Sk/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41