- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101788 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: ANJANEYA PRASAD @ PRASD GOVINDRAO GUNTOUR. AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O: NO.45, PACIFIC PARK, SAGAR COLONY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-581120. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVASAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. WINNERCELL, SRIRAM S/O. RANGAIAH, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO:79, PANTAMAHARAJ COLONY, BENGERI, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI TOWN-581120. Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 2. BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. HUBBALLI BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, CENTRAL BUILDING, OPP: VIDYANAGAR P.S. HUBBALLI-581120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.292/2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HUBBALLI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, 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:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The claimant /appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 27.06.2018 passed in MVC.No.292/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation so awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. That claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident that took place on 16.02.2013 when he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25-EK-954 on National Highway No.63 from Hubballi to Yellapur. It is stated that, respondent No.1 was riding the vehicle at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and when the said vehicle was nearing Sangatikoppa village, because of skidding of the vehicle, he - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital Kalaghatagi and after taking first aid treatment, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and thereafter to 24X7 Lifeline Hospital Hubballi. He had sustained facture to his limb as well as injuries on his nose. Because of the accidental injuries, he has lost his left eyesight. It is stated that, prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was working in a Call Centre earning Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- p.m. He has spent substantial money towards medical expenses. He has been permanently disabled. According to him, respondent No.1 being the owner / rider of the vehicle and respondent No.2, being the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. In response to the notices by the Tribunal both the respondents appeared but respondent No.1 alone has filed objections and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company did not file objections. The respondent No.1 denied all the assertions made in the petition with regard to the nature of the accident, the sustaining of injuries by the claimant in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 the manner alleged in the petition. It is contended that as on the date of accident, the Insurance policy was in force and valid, therefore, the liability be fastened on respondent No.2. It is contended that, he was holding effective Driving Licence at the time of accident and has not committed any breach of the policy conditions. Therefore, it is prayed by respondent No.1 to dismiss the petition. 5. Based upon the rival pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed in all four issues. To prove the case of the claimant, he was examined as PW.1 and also examined two independent witnesses in the shape of PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P29. Closed claimant evidence. Respondents have not lead any oral evidence. 6. After hearing the argument and on evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, because of rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by respondent No.1, the said accident has taken place. It is held that as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy was in force and valid. There is no violation of any policy - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 conditions. Hence, it is held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation under various heads as under: SL. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Future loss of income 96,000-00 2. Medical expenses and incidental charges (3,35,000 + 15,000) 3,50,000-00 3. Pain and suffering 10,000-00 4. Loss of income during laid up period 10,000-00 5. Loss of amenities and happiness 20,000-00 TOTAL 4,86,000-00 7. Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the compensation on both the respondents, however, under Law of Indemnity, respondent No.2 - the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of award. 8. Now the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. Though respondent No.1 is served with notice, but remained absent. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel. It is submitted that, being - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, none of the respondents have preferred any appeal challenging the nature of the accident, so also the liability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the nature of accident and liability has attained finality. Because of the same now this appeal is restricted with regard to the enhancement of compensation. The question that would arise for our consideration is: "Whether the claimant is entitled for any enhancement in compensation as prayed for?" 9. To prove that, the claimant had sustained the grievous injuries on his person, he has produced Wound certificate at Ex.P4. This Ex.P4 shows that, the claimant had sustained the following injuries on his person in the said accident: “Black eye (Lt) Multiple abrasions over fore-Head Abrasion over bidge of nose. Multiple abrasions over dorsum of Rt. Hand Lt. Hand: Swelling & Tenderness Lt. Foot: Swelling & Heal tenderness - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 X-ray of lateral Lt, ancle: Suspicious # of left calcaneus” 10. To prove that he has taken treatment at KIMS Hospital as well as 24X7 Lifeline Hospital, so also at NIMHANS Hospital at Bangalore, he has produced medical records such as medical bills, prescriptions and reports from NIMHANS Hospital at Exs.P6 to P25. While marking these documents, no little finger was raised by the respondents. Ex.P25 the report from the NIMHANS Hospital, do show the tests conducted to assess the Neuro Phychological assessment, so also observations with regard to his medical condition. According to NIMHANS Hospital, the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 18%. To substantiate the said fact of disability, PW.1 reiterates the contents of the claim petition and he is categorical that, he has consulted doctors from M.M.Joshi Hospital with regard to the injury suffered by him to his left eye. Dr.Krishna Prasad, an ophthalmologist is examined, a doctor from M.M.Joshi Hospital. According to PW.2, claimant has sustained functional disability to the extent of 20%. Dr. Jamuna - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 Rajeshwaran, doctor from NIMHANS Hospital is examined as PW.3. He has assessed the disability as per the report Ex.P25. PW.3 is cross-examined. According to him, the claimant had suffered cognitive disability of 9%. 11. Taking into oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal had taken the disability to the whole body at 10%. It is not the case of the claimant that, even till date, the said disability continues. He is taking follow up treatments. X-ray is of the year 2013 and by this time because of follow up treatment, the disability must have been reduced to a considerable extent as because claimant was just 34 years of age when the accident took place. Thus rightly, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 10%. We do not find any error committed by the Tribunal. 12. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of claimant at Rs.5,000/-. It is argued by the counsel for the claimant that, the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income but concedes that, no evidence to that, effect is produced. Therefore, taking into consideration of the year of accident 2013 and also the guidelines issued by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority with regard to the assessment of income, in the absence of acceptable evidence, the income of the claimant has to be assessed at Rs.7,000/- p.m. The disability is assessed at 10% and the claimant was aged 34 years at the time of accident. Hence, the proper multiplier that is applicable is “16”. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability is to be assessed at Rs.1,34,400/- (7,000 x 12 months x 16 multiplier x 10/100). In this regard the Tribunal has committed error in awarding at Rs.96,000/- towards future loss of income, it is to be enhanced to Rs.1,34,400/- from Rs.96,000/-. 13. With regard to the medical expenses and incidental charges, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,50,000/, and has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness. The Tribunal has rightly assessed such a compensation which does not require any interference. However, these injuries must have made the claimant to experience the pain and sufferance and Tribunal has awarded just Rs.10,000/-. In view of the period of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 treatment as well as the nature of injuries, under the head of pain and suffering it requires some enhancement. If it is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- from 10,000/-, it would meet ends of justice. Thus, the claimant has made out grounds to enhance the compensation towards loss of future income due to disability at Rs.1,34,400/- and towards pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-. So far as other heads are concerned, there shall not be any enhancement as prayed and the amount awarded is just and reasonable. With this view, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part by holding that the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation as under: SL. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Future loss of income 1,34,400-00 2. Medical expenses and incidental charges (3,35,000 + 15,000) 3,50,000-00 3. Pain and suffering 20,000-00 4. Loss of income during laid up period 10,000-00 5. Loss of amenities and happiness 20,000-00 TOTAL 5,34,400-00 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 14. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in-part. ii. The claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,34,400/- as against Rs.4,86,000/- thereby, there would be enhancement of Rs.48,400/- as compensation. iii. The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.292/2014 dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi is hereby modified to the above extent. iv. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally are held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 to deposit the said enhanced compensation together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2488-DB MFA No. 101788 of 2019 realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment before the Tribunal. As the amount is meager and already 12 years have been lapsed, the Tribunal to release the entire compensation amount with interest to the claimant digitally. v. There shall be a modified award accordingly. vi. Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/CT-VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21