- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH 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.100856 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAHUL SHRIKANT HUGAR AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (NOW NIL), SINCE MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED, REP.BY HIS NEXT FRIEND I.E., FATHER SHRIKANT S/O. MORTHEPPA HUGAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O: PLOT NO.100, HANUMAN NAGAR, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHANTESH SHIVAPUTRAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: UTNAL, TQ: BASAVAN BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203. Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING FOR, COMPENSATION IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.2033/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V, BELAGAVI, IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.77,13,449/- AND INTEREST AT RATE OF 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND MAY BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO RS.2,22,86,551/- WITH 18% INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE 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:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal has been filed by the petitioner/claimant inter alia seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident that took place on 06.06.2018 when he was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-28-EP- 1060 from Sindagi to Bailhongal. It is his case that, at 2.00 p.m. when the said motor cycle came near Sanshi Cross within the limits of Kaladagi jurisdiction, the rider of the motor bike drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and jumped over a road hump. Because of this, claimant fell down and sustained head injury. Immediately he was shifted to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot. In the said Hospital he took treatment as inpatient from 6.6.2018 to 18.6.2018. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sakra World Hospital, Bengaluru. At the time of filing this petition, he was still under treatment. According to him, his guardian has spent more than Rs.35,00,000/- towards medical expenses. When the accident took place, the petitioner was aged 21 years - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 and studying in medical field. In addition to that, he was doing part time service as an Assistant in Managuli Hospital, Sindagi and was earning Rs.19,000/- per month. According to him, he is completely bed ridden and unable to do any type of work. He has become physically and mentally disabled due to accidental injuries and completely depending on others. To meet the expenses of attendant he is spending 600 to 800 per day. He has lost his marriage prospects and his future dreams are shattered. Thus, he claims that both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.3 crores as claimed in the petition. 2. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared and denied the nature of accident so occurred. Respondent no.1 denied his negligence as alleged in the petition. According to respondent no.1, petitioner himself fell down and sustained injuries. He denied the age, income, the present health status of the petitioner, so also contends that as the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident, he was holding the effective driving licence, liability - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 may be fastened on respondent no.2 to pay the compensation being the insurer. 3. Whereas, respondent no.2 contends that, it disputes the very nature of accident so occurred, claimants age, income and sufferance of permanent disability. According to respondent no.2 Insurer, the petitioner has glorified the injuries to get more compensation. According to insurer, the said vehicle has been falsely implicated in collusion with respondent no.1, police and hospital authorities. The driver was not possessing the driving licence. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Based upon the aforesaid rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed in all four issues. Sofar as jurisdiction for entertained of petition, it was answered in favour of claimant by the Tribunal by orders dated 10.6.2019 and respondent no.2 has not challenged the said finding, by preferring any independent appeal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 5. It is the case of the claimant that, he is completely bedridden. Because of the accidental injuries, he has become mentally and physically challenged therefore, he sought permission of the Tribunal to prosecute the petition through his father being his natural guardian Tribunal has granted permission. The order permitting natural guardian has attained finality. 6. To prove the claim of the claimant, the father of the petitioner/claimant by name Srikanth Mortheppa Hugar entered the witness box as PW.1 and two doctors by name Dr. T.R.Chandrashekar and Dr.Manjunath Akashi were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.26 and closed claimant’s evidence. 7. To rebut the evidence of the claimant, one Anil Kumar Kulkarni, an official of R2 examined as RW.1 and through him, Ex.R1, a copy of Insurance policy which was valid as on the date of accident came to be marked. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent riding of motor bike owned and ridden by respondent No.1. As on the date of accident, respondent No.1 was possessing the driving licence and there no violation of policy conditions by the respondent no.1 and fastened liability on both the respondents’ to pay the compensation. But, however directed respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation of Rs.77,13,449/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Amount [in Rs.] 1. Loss of future income 32,40,000/- 2. Hospital/medical expenses 32,73,449/- 3. Pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- 4. Food and nourishment 1,25,000/- 5. Attendant charges 2,00,000/- 6. Transportation charges 25,000/- 7. Loss of expectancy of life 2,00,000/- 8. Loss of amenities including loss of marital prospects 1,00,000/- 9. Loss of income to parents 1,50,000/- 10. Future medical expenses 2,00,000/- Total 77,13,449/- 8. Being dissatisfied with the said award, now the claimant through his guardian father, as he is physically - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 and mentally challenged, is before this Court seeking enhancement in compensation. 9. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant Sri Vithal Teli took us through the pleadings of both the parties, evidence placed on record both oral and documentary and specifically contends that, the claimant was a BAMS student and he had very good future. In addition to his studies, the claimant was working as an Assistant with Managuli Hospital, Sindagi and was earning more than Rs.19,000/-. Therefore, he submits that, as claimant has suffered physical and mental disability to the extent of 100%. Now, one person has to attend his requirements and the claimant has to spend substantial money towards attendant charges. He would submit that, PW.1 being the father of claimant has spent more than Rupees 35 lakhs towards medical expenses. Learned counsel Sri. Vithal Teli would further submit that, the claimant was aged 21 years at the time of accident and he has been completely bedridden. He has lost his future earnings, his marriage prospects, He would submit that, whatever the compensation so awarded by the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 Tribunal is inadequate in view of present medical status of the claimant. He would submit that, in view of the grounds urged in the appeal memo, as well as present position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments with regard to accidental injuries, as well as disability assessed by the doctor, the claimant has to be compensated reasonably and substantially. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri G.N.Raichur and standing counsel for insurer would submit that, whatever the compensation so awarded is on higher side and none of the grounds urged in the appeal are substantiated by the claimant. Therefore, he would submit that, as the said accident has taken place because of own negligence of the claimant, he is not entitled for any compensation much less claimed in the claim petition. He would further submit that, though the Insurer has not preferred appeal, the insurer can very well take up the grounds as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to challenge the award. In support of his submission, he too relies upon the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 pleadings and evidence on record adduced by both the side, as well as the findings of the Tribunal. 11. So far as respondent no.1 is concerned, though he appeared before the Tribunal and contested the petition by filing objections but, has not chosen to enter the witness box or cross-examined any of the witnesses. That means the pleadings of respondent no.1 have remained as it is without any proof. 12. We have given anxious consideration to the submission of both the side. Perused the records. 13. In this case, there is no denial of accident that occurred on 6.6.2018 at 2.00 a.m. near Samshi Cross when the claimant was traveling with respondent no.1 as a pillion rider because of jumping on road hump in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1. Claimant fell down and sustained injuries as narrated in the wound certificate. So also it is not in dispute that the Insurance Policy was valid and in force as on the date of the accident and there - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 was no violation of any of the policy conditions by respondent no.1. Therefore, respondent nos.1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal, thereby, admits the liability saddled by the Tribunal on respondent no.2. Therefore, in this appeal, we are not supposed to dwell upon the said issue of liability. 14. The petitioner claims that, he has suffered permanent disability assessed at 100%. Further he relies upon the evidence of the doctor who has spoken about the permanent mental disability for the whole body. In respect of health condition of the petitioner, Dr.T.R.Chandrashekhar examined as PW.2 being a Neuro Psychiatrist at Abhay Hospital, Belagavi has come before the Tribunal and has categorically stated that, he had verified the medical documents issued by Sakra Old Hospital , Bengaluru. He noticed that, claimant has sustained “right nasal fracture, Nasopharynix, right cerebral peduncle tiny acute haemorrhagic ontusion, left superior parietal sulci acute subarachnoid hemorrhage, left frontal and parietal scalp sub galeal hematoma,” He has categorically stated that, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 claimant has undergone surgery- Burr Hole evacuation of SDH surgery on 28.6.2018. He opines that, on his clinical examination of the claimant, he complained of inability to talk, not able to walk, completely dependent on others so also suffering from giddiness, so also decreased memory. He is not able to continue studies. According to him, mental status examination of the claimant could not be ascertained as the claimant was not co-operative and eye-to-eye could not be established, difficult to establish the rapport. Thus, he has categorically stated about the health and medical condition of the claimant and he had assessed the disability with regard to the self care, interpersonal activities, communication and understanding work studies, duration of illness, and he opined that, the claimant had scored 16 in IDEAS as per State Commission for persons with disabilities. This doctor is of the opinion that, the claimant had sustained permanent mental disability to the whole body. According to him, because of these injuries he opined that, as a result of memory impairment and poor concentration and disturbed cognitive function, claimant is not able to do - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 any work. He needs prophylactic treatment for his illness all his lifetime and dependent completely and not able to give evidence in Court. 15. Learned counsel for respondent cross-examined this PW.2 intensively. He is specific about the accidental injuries mentioned in the wound certificate as well as contents of Ex.P8 with regard to the complaints mentioned. Though it is objected by respondent no.2 stating that, PW.2 is not a treated doctor but, this PW.2 is specific about the medical condition of the petitioner by stating that, this claimant had undergone operation of his head as there was hemorrhage of left parietal region, blood clot was taken out and brain tissue in the said area was damaged. He further denied suggestions that, now petitioner is fully recovered. 16. The learned Tribunal has observed that, though PW.2 is not a treated doctor, that itself is not a ground to disbelieve his evidence. Tribunal has further observed that PW2 is a competent consultant Neuro-psychiatrist having vast experience in the medical field and based upon his - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 clinical examination, he has given his evidence based upon treatment at Sakra Hospital. This finding of the Tribunal is not challenged by respondent no.2- insurer. 17. To support the said finding, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court in Syed Amanulla vs. B.K.Venkatesh Rajanna and another1 wherein it is held that, merely because doctor, who has issued disability certificate, might not have treated the patient but, it is not a ground to hold that doctor is medically incompetent to assess the disability. This assessment is done as per the physical status of a person as on the date of the clinical examination. It is further observed by the Tribunal that, non-examination of the treated doctor is not fatal to the case of the petitioner. As such, as the said finding is not challenged by insurer, now the insurer cannot contend that, PWs.2’s evidence cannot be accepted. 1 2006 (3) AIR Kar.R.265 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments i.e., in Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar2, Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,3 Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande4, and Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.5, have categorically observed that in a case of present nature, how the Tribunal has to assess the compensation. 19. Now in this appeal, we are concerned about quantum of compensation. Petitioner claims enhancement in compensation, whereas, insurer contends whatever awarded is on higher side. 20. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant Sri Vithal Teli that, the respondents have not denied the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.19,000/- p.m. and Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.15,000/- which is on lower side. According to his submission, as the 2 2011 (1) SCC 343 3 (2013) 8 SCC 389 4 (2017) 3 SCC 351 5 (2014) 2 SCC 735 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 petitioner was working as Medical Assistant in the Hospital and was earning Rs.19,000/- per month, to the same 30% has to be added thereto as incremental income. He would further submit that, based upon that, compensation has to be assessed and calculated as the claimant was aged just 21 years at the time of accident. Based on this, the Tribunal has applied the proper multiplier by following he judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation6. He would submit that, over and above the same, the petitioner is entitled to non-pecuniary expenses so also towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities etc., as stated supra. On the other hand, respondent No.2 being the contesting Insurer justifies the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 21. In Rajkumar supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the award of compensation should be to the extent possible fully and adequately to restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury but also for the loss 6 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 which he suffered as a result of such injury. This would include compensation for his inability to lead a full life, enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but, for the injuries as also his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or would have earned. The Hon’ble Apex Court further laid down the heads under which the compensation is to be awarded in personal injury cases. In personal injury cases, in para.6 of the judgment in Rajkumar supra, has stated about the same as under: “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” 22. With regard to the percentage of permanent disability, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in paragraphs 9 to 14 as under: “9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] ) 12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.” 23. Even in his judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically summarized the principles at para.19 as under: “19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 24. In the subsequent judgments also, the Hon’ble Apex Court followed the aforesaid judgment while assessing the compensation in personal injury cases because of the road traffic accident. 25. In this case, the petitioner claims that he was working as Medical Assistant, so also studying in BAMS Medical Course. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. The evidence of doctors shows that he has sustained 100% disability. In Sandeep Khauja case, the Hon’ble Apex Court gave prominence to the nature of the vocation of the claimant while assessing the loss of income and has reiterated that in awarding compensation, the multiplier method should be logically sound and legally well established. Recently, in Erudhaya Priya vs. State - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 Express Corporation7 the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken note of the injuries suffered by the claimant and held that, while applying the multiplier, future prospects of advancement in life and career to be taken into consideration. 26. Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the profession of petitioner-claimant being a student of BAMS Medical Course. It is stated that he was earning Rs.19,000/- per month as an Assistant in Primary Health Centre and the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.15,000/-. As the claimant was a medical student having good future and he was not an ordinary coolie, taking into consideration of the evidence placed on record as well his profession as a doctor in due course of time, if the monthly income of Rs.17,000/- is fixed as his monthly income from all sources, it would meet the ends of justice. There is also no dispute that multiplier `18’ would be applicable to the case taking into account the age of the claimant and in 7 AIR 2020 SC 4284 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma supra. 27. The only issue in dispute is whether permanent disability of the claimant is to be assessed at 100% or otherwise. In this regard, PWs.2 and 3 doctors have come before the Tribunal and have stated about the health and medical condition of the claimant and their evidence is purely based on medical records so produced by the claimant. Though there is a searching cross-examination directed to PWs.2 and 3 but, they have withstood the test of cross-examination and they are consistent about the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant in the said accident and nature of treatment administered on him so also his disability. As per the medical records, he is having multiple physical impairments and from the date of doctor’s evidence and even till date, he is taking treatment. The doctors have opined about his disability which is permanent in nature and throughout his life, he has to be bedridden and require attendant’s assistance which is not disputed by any of the - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 respondents. It is submitted by the counsel for the claimant that, the claimant is like a living dead person. 28. Claimant is a medical student as well as working as Assistant with the doctor and the injuries suffered by him have made him completely bed ridden. Thus, in view of serious permanent disabilities suffered by the claimant at 100% which is assessed by the Tribunal based upon the evidence placed on record, the same is required to be considered i.e., permanent physical disability to the extent of 100%. 29. In this regard, the learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on disability certificate marked at Ex.P8 issued by Dr.Chandrashekar T.R. who is Neuro- Psychiatrist before the Tribunal and as per his opinion “on clinical examination of Mr.Rahul Hugar in OPD of Abhaya Hospital, he scores `16’ in IDEAS which corresponds to 90- 95% as per the evaluation of various disabilities. It is a permanent mental disability. The doctor is of the opinion that, the claimant needs prophylactic treatment for his - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 illness for all his lifetime and dependent completely and not able to give evidence. With regard to his education, the Principal of TSPSM Ayurvedic Medical College, Bijapur has issued a letter stating that claimant-Rahul Hugar is student of their college and is absent from 6.6.2018 till 26.2.2019 i.e. issuance of said letter because of injuries in a road traffic accident. His marks card is also produced at Ex.P.10. These documents are not disputed by the respondents. As his income is assessed at Rs.17,000/-. As claimant is self- employed and his age is 21 years at the time of accident, 40% is to be added towards future prospects as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi8. That means, his monthly income would be Rs.17,000/- + Rs.6,800/- it comes to Rs.23,800/-. So far as deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, some amount is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Notionally 1/3rd is to be deducted from Rs.23,800/- which comes to Rs.15,867/- (Rs.23,800 – 1/3rd of Rs.23,800 i.e., 7,933/-. Thus, the loss of future income 8 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 due to disability would be (Rs.15,867 x 12 months x 18 multiplier) Rs.34,27,272/-. 30. The learned Tribunal has awarded attendant charges at Rs.2,00,000/- notionally. Looking to the condition of the claimant as well as the injuries suffered by him, throughout his life, he requires an Attendant. Looking to the present day conditions as well as the place of residence of the claimant, if certain amount is awarded towards attendant charges per month by applying the same multiplier with regard to expectancy of life, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rs.3,000/- per month x 12 months x 18 multiplier = Rs.6,48,000/- as against Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for enhancement of compensation towards Attendant Charges. 31. Over and above this, the claimant has claimed non-pecuniary expenses. As noted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar supra, as the permanent disability of the claimant has been assessed at 100%, the claimant may - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 not be entitled for enhancement under other heads though claimed by him. The Tribunal has rightly assessed compensation under other heads and compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the compensation as under: Sl.N o Heads Amount [in Rs.] 1. Loss of future income 34,27,272/- 2. Hospital/medical expenses 32,73,449/- 3. Pain and sufferings 2,00,000/- 4. Food and nourishment 1,25,000/- 5. Attendant charges 6,48,000/- 6. Transportation charges 25,000/- 7. Loss of expectancy of life 2,00,000/- 8. Loss of amenities including loss of marital prospects 1,00,000/- 9. Loss of income to parents 1,50,000/- 10. Future medical expenses 2,00,000/- Total 83,48,721/- 32. Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rs.83,48,721/- as against Rs.77,13,449/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby, there is enhancement of Rs.6,35,272/- rounded off to Rs.6,35,500/-together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization on the entire compensation so awarded. Resultantly, we pass the following: - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 ORDER i. Appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in–part. ii. Claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.83,48,721/- as against Rs.77,13,449/- awarded by the Tribunal and thereby, there is enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,35,500/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iii. Judgment and award dated 17.08.2019 passed in MVC No.2033/2018 by the IV Addl. District Judge and MACT-V, Belagavi, is modified. iv. The other direction with regard to release and deposit of the compensation amount remains unaltered. v. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1489-DB MFA No. 100856 of 2020 vi. There shall be modified award in the above terms. vii. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Sk/CT:VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21