- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH 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. 103954 OF 2023 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHRI YALLAPPA S/O ANTU KAMBLE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, NOW NIL R/O :KANGRALI KH 590010 TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI DAMODHAR S/O JETHU DEVAL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O:F1, BARRACK NO. 24/6 NEAR PREMPPRAKASH TEMPLE, GANDHI NAGAR, KOLHAPUR 416119 TQ AND DIST. KOLHAPUR 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED R/BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE BRANCH MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 1ST FLOOR, KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI 580029 KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUBASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE DISPENCED WITH R1) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2023 IN MVC NO.1730/2019 PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BELGAVI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS. 19,30,169/- TO RS.60,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDMENT 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:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.2.2023 passed in MVC No.1730/2019 passed by the X Addl.District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Belagavi. 2. The appellant-claimant has presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation alleging, that on 10.03.2019 at 5.00 p.m. when he was riding his motor bike bearing Regn.No.MH – 09/ AU – 8817 towards Chikkodi from Nippani and when he reached near Akkol Cross within the Pattanakundi village, one TIAGO car bearing Regn. MH-9 FB 3381 driven by its driver in high speed and in an attempt to over take another vehicle came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against motorcycle of the petitioner and caused accident. He sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was shifted to Govt.Hospital, Chikodi and thereafter to KLE Hospital, Belagavi for further treatment. In the said hospital, he was an inpatient for a day and was shifted to City Hospital, Kolhapur where he took treatment - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 as inpatient for 40 days. He underwent surgeries. He had spent more than Rs.6 lakh towards medical expenses and even he requires further Rs.5 lakh for future treatment. 3. It is alleged that at the time of accident, he was 40 years old and was hale and healthy and working as a driver with Singhi Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Now he has become permanently disabled. According to him, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car therefore; both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation and has prayed to award compensation of Rs.60 lakhs with interest. 4. Despite service of notice, respondent no.1 remained absent and was placed ex parte. Respondent No. 2 insurer of the offending car appeared through Standing Counsel and opposed the petition by filing detailed objection statement denying the entire assertions made in the petition with regard to the said accident, income of the claimant and his profession etc. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 5. It is contended that, the driver did not possess the driving licence. The said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of motor bike by the claimant. The insurer is not liable to pay the compensation because of violation of policy conditions. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned tribunal framed in all 3 issues. 7. Before the Tribunal, claimant was examined as PW.1 and also examined a doctor by name Dr.G.K.Arun and got marked Ex.P1 to P21 and closed claimants’ evidence. Respondent no.2 insurer has produced the copy of the insurance policy at Ex.R1 and no oral evidence is adduced by the insurer.- on behalf of respondent no.2. 8. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending car and insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle was valid on the date of the accident in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 respect of the offending vehicle insured with respondent no.2. and further held that, both the respondent no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally are liable to pay the compensation, however directed respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.19,30,169/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within two months and in case of default, it is ordered that respondent no.2 is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till realization of entire compensation amount with a direction to disburse and deposit the amount as stated in the final order. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, none of the respondents preferred appeal. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the nature of the accident and liability, so also the quantum awarded by the Tribunal has attained finality. Now by preferring this appeal, claimant is seeking enhancement in compensation on the ground that the claimant has suffered in all 9 injuries and amongst them there are five fractures and other grievous injuries. According to the learned counsel for the claimant Smt. Sunanda P.Patil, the claimant was driver by profession and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 was earning sufficient income at Mumbai. Because of these injuries, he is physically disabled and cannot continue his profession as driver. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the disability to the extent of 40% to the whole body and based upon that, the Tribunal has calculated the compensation. The Tribunal has not considered the pain; suffering suffered by the claimant and under various conventional heads, the compensation is not properly calculated. As the claimant has suffered permanent disability, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the future prospects have to be added to the income of the claimant, so also she submits that, percentage of disability has to be increased substantially. Even the claimant requires future medical expenses, also as he has suffered multiple fractures and grievous injuries, and prayed to award compensation as prayed in the petition by enhancing the same in this appeal. 10. As against this submission, the learned counsel for the insurer Sri Subhagh J.Baggi categorically submits that, still the claimant is working. There is no permanent disability suffered by the claimant in the manner so stated - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 by him. The Tribunal is right in assessing the permanent disability. The claimant is not entitled for any future prospects. The Tribunal, on conventional head has rightly awarded the compensation and according to him as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr1, the compensation has to be awarded based upon the nature of the disability. According to him, the general principles relating the compensation in injury cases are based upon the pecuniary damages, expenses in relation to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishment food and misc. expenditure, so also loss of earnings during the treatment period, and loss of future earnings due to disability and future medical expenses. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant and has rightly awarded the compensation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal without interfering into the impugned judgment and award. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side and perused the records. 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 12. In view of the rival submissions of both the side, the question that is to be decided in this appeal is, “Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?” Our answer to the above point is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons. 13. So far as injuries suffered by the claimant is concerned, the learned Tribunal has narrated the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant in the said accident. For better appreciation, it is just and proper to reproduce the said injuries suffered by the claimant as under: i. “Lacerated wound over the forehead left side 4 x 2 cm ii. Lacerated wound over the face left cheek 5 x 1cm iii. Closed fracture of left humerus iv. Closed fracture of left femur v. Degloving injury over right lateral sided of ankle 2 x 2 cm. vi. Subdural Haematoma in left fronto temporal region vii. Proximal tibia fracture viii. Chest injury with rib fracture ix. Lateral end of right clavicle fracture” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 14. On reading the nature of injuries stated above, the claimant has suffered five fractures to the vital parts of his body, two lacerated wounds on his forehead and face, degloving injury over right lateral side of ankle and also subdural haematoma in left front temporal region. Except the two injuries stated above, the other injuries are grievous in nature. Because of these grievous injuries, the claimant must have suffered lot. The Tribunal considering all these aspects, has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering because of these injuries. As the claimant has suffered five fractures and simple and grievous injuries as narrated above, he must have suffered lot and under this head though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- compensation, it requires some enhancement. Taking into consideration the nature of treatment taken by the claimant as well as the date of accident, by this time, the injuries must have been healed. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for further enhancement of Rs.25,000/- i.e., in all Rs.1,25,000/- towards pain and suffering. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 15. In view of the judgment relied upon by the claimant, to assess the disability, we have to read the evidence adduced by the claimant. He has examined Dr.G.K.Arun as PW.2 and produced wound certificate, discharge summary issued by Kolhapur Hospital, disability certificate, x-ray reports, x-ray films which are not disputed by the respondents. 16. PW.2 in his evidence has stated that, he has issued Ex.P18, the disability certificate. When he clinically examined the claimant, he noticed the aforesaid injuries on the claimant’s person and at the time of his clinical examination. The claimant complained of the following factors: “1) Pain of moderate degree in the right chest/left upper+lower limbs. 2) Weakness of the left upper/lower ribs/right shoulder. 3) Difficulty in deep breathing. 4) Limping of the left lower limb. 5) Inability to stand or walk without support of crutches.” - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 17. The above complaints show that, even as on issuance of Ex.P18, there were so many disabilities complained by the claimant. The doctor has assessed disability based upon his clinical examination to the various limbs as under: “1. 40% (Fourty percent) in respect of the left upper limb. 2. 70% (Seventy percent) in respect of the left lower limb. 3. 20% (Twenty percent) in respect of right upper limb. 4. 20% (Twenty percent) in respect of chest.” 18. These are all the functional disabilities noticed by the doctor. PW.2 in his evidence corroborates the contents of these documents. He has been thoroughly cross-examined by respondent no.2. According to his cross-examination, he is not a treated doctor and based upon medical records he has given his evidence before the Tribunal. 19. So far as income of the claimant is concerned, it is stated that, claimant was a driver by occupation in Mumbai and was earning Rs.19,083/-. This income of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 claimant is not denied by the respondents. To prove the income of the claimant, claimant has produced his SB Account Pass Book, Salary slips at Ex.P14 and 15 which support that, he was earning the aforesaid monthly salary from his avocation as a driver. While marking these documents, no objections are raised by respondents. 20. Taking into consideration all these aspects, so also the nature of treatment and occupation of the claimant as Driver, because of these accidental injuries, the possibility of claimant suffering 50% of disability to the whole body cannot be ruled out. It is stated that claimant was earning Rs.19,083/- and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi2, with regard to future prospects, as he was aged 40 years at the time of accident, 25% is to be added towards future prospects. Rs.19,083/- + Rs.4,771/- =Rs.23,854/- As claimant has suffered 50% disability, 50% is required to be considered as his income i.e., Rs.11,927/-. It is to be multiplied with `12’ to calculate annually. As the 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 claimant was aged 40 years at the time of accident, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the proper multiplier that is applicable is `15’. Thus, the loss of future income Rs.11,927 x 12 months x 15 = Rs.21,46,860/- Thus, loss of future income due to disability is Rs.21,46,860/-. 21. So far as amenities to be enjoyed in life are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the same. He being aged 40 years at the time of accident, with all frustrations, inconveniences and discomforts, he has to survive. Therefore, in view of the nature of injuries suffered by him as well as amenities to be enjoyed in life, if additional amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities to be enjoyed in life, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus the claimant is held entitled for enhanced compensation in all Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. 3 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 22. The Tribunal has considered loss of income during laid up period Rs.95,415/-, attendant charges, food nourishment etc. at Rs.50,000/-, Pain and Suffering at Rs.1,25,000/- and also medical expenses at Rs.4,43,975/- based upon the actual bills produced by the claimant. In our considered opinion, the compensation awarded under these heads is just and reasonable which do not require any interference by this Court. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for the compensation as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount Rs. 1. Loss of future income due to disability 21,46,860/- 2. Medical Expenses 4,43,975/- 3. Loss of amenities in life 1,00,000/- 4. Attendant Charges 50,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid-up period 95,415/- 6. Pain and Suffering 1,25,000/- Total 29,61,250/- 23. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.29,61,250/- as against Rs.19,30,169/- thereby, there is enhancement of Rs.10,31,081/-. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 24. So far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of petition till its realization with default clause. We do no find any error in such findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, the said rate of interest so awarded does not require any interference by this Court. 25. So far as liability is concerned, it is admitted by the insurer. No document is produced to show that there is violation of policy conditions. Therefore, liability of the respondents is joint and several and however, respondent no.2 being the Insurer has to deposit the compensation amount as per Law of Indemnity. 26. Accordingly, the point raised supra is answered partly in the affirmative. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i. Appeal is Allowed in-part. ii. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.29,61,250/- as against - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 Rs.19,30,169/- thereby, there is enhancement of Rs.10,31,081/-. iii. The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.1730/2019 dated 28.02.2023 passed by the X Addl.District Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, is hereby modified to the above extent. iv. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally 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 realisation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment before the Tribunal. v. There shall be a modified award accordingly. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1442-DB MFA No. 103954 of 2023 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 SK, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33