- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH 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. 103511 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT.SUNILAMMA W/O. THIMMARAJULU AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST-CUM- REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND HOUSEWIFE, R/O: DEVI NAGAR 1ST CROSS, BALLARI-583101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. Y. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. Y. GAVISIDAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: RIDER OF THE HONDA MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/EF-4296, R/O: 48/9, WEAVERS STREET, NEAR BIG VEGETABLE MARKET, BALLARI-583101. 2. Y. NAGARAJ S/O. Y. GAVISIDDAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS, OWNER OF THE HONDA MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/EF-4296, R/O: D.NO.48, W.NO.10, MARRISWAMY MUTT STREET, Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 DODDA MARKET IMBAGA, BALLARI-583101. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHANKAR COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE DISPENSED WITH R1 AND R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.489/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The claimant-injured has preferred this appeal being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 15th June 2019 passed in MVC No.489/2017 by the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Ballari seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Parties to this appeal are referred as per their rank before the tribunal for convenience. 3. Claimant filed a claim petition under Section U/S.173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the respondents on account of her suffering accidental injuries in the road traffic accident. 4. It is the case of the claimant that, on 15.8.2017 at 11.15 a.m. when she was moving on the Moka Road, near Nakshatra LR Hotel, Ballari. It is her case that, at that time, respondent no.1 being the rider of motor bike bearing Regn.No.KA-34/EF-4296 came from Durgamma Temple - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 towards Moka Road in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. Because of this accident, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, she was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari for treatment and on the next day, she was shifted to St.Marys Hospital, Ballari. She underwent surgery to her head and thereafter she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. It is stated that, in the said hospital, she took the treatment as an in-patient for 15 days and during that period; she was advised to make use of ventilator for survival. She also took treatment under Dr.Vishwnatha, a 'Neuro Surgeon' so also later under private doctors. Thus, she had spent Rs.7 lakh towards medical and other expenses. It is stated that, prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy and was aged 32 years and was an agriculturist by occupation and was doing real estate business. She owns 4 acres of land growing commercial crops. She was earning Rs.80,000/- per month from her profession. Because of these accidental injuries, she has been disabled and cannot earn as she was earning prior to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 the accident. Therefore, she prays to award compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- directing respondent nos.1 to 3 to pay the same jointly and severally. 5. All the respondents appeared before the Tribunal through their respective counsel. Respondent nos.1 and 3 only filed their respective objections. Respondent no.1 denied all the averments made in the petition with regard the age, occupation and income of the petitioner so also nature of the accident. According to him, because of sudden crossing of the petitioner towards divider, the said accident has taken place. He was driving the said vehicle in a slow manner. There was no rash and negligent driving of motor bike by him. He was possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, respondent nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation as policy was in force and valid, as on the date of accident. 6. Respondent no.3 specifically contends that, its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent no.2 has violated the policy conditions. By - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 denying all the assertions with regard to the said accident, income, injuries suffered by the claimant etc., it is prayed to dismiss the petition. Further, it is contended that, because of contributory negligence on the part of claimant herself, the said accident has taken place and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Based upon rival pleadings of both the parties, three issues were framed by the Tribunal. To prove the claim of the claimant, she was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 31, and examined Dr.A.S.Dani as PW.2. Respondent No.3 has produced the copy of the policy at Ex.R3 and it is marked with consent. 8. Learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence held that, the said accident has took place because of rash and negligent driving of motor bike by respondent no.1 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. It is further held that, claimant has suffered substantial injuries and based upon the evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 claimant has suffered 70% disability to the whole body. Tribunal has not believed the income of the claimant at Rs.80,000/- from her profession/occupation, but awarded global compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. It is held that all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation, but, however directed respondent no.3 to deposit the compensation amount. 9. Now the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for the claimant Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar would submit that, the medical records as well as the doctor’s evidence prove the disability suffered by the claimant because of accidental injuries. The claimant has suffered too much pain and agony due to fracture. The income of the deceased is not properly assessed by the Tribunal. As per the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the global compensation in such cases ought not to have been awarded by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal ought to have awarded pecuniary damages as well as non-pecuniary damages separately. He would - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 submit that, in view of evidence placed on record by the claimant through herself and PW.2, the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement. Hence, prays to allow this appeal. 10. As against this submission, the learned counsel Sri S.S.Koliwad the Standing Counsel for respondent no.3, supports the reasons assigned by the Tribunal. He specifically contends that, the income and disability of the claimant is not proved. According to him, the Tribunal is right in holding that, the claimant is entitled for global compensation. He concedes that, being aggrieved by the findings with regard to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, the said accident has taken place no appeal or cross -objections are filed by respondent no.3. However, he would contend that, respondent no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He prays to dismiss the appeal against respondent no.3. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 11. Respondent nos.1 and 2 though served with the notice, remained absent and not represented before this Court. 12. In view of the rival submissions of both the side, the only point that would arise for our consideration is: “whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed in this appeal?" 13. PW.1 claimant has reiterated the contents of petition averments, with regard to the injuries suffered by her in the said accident. She specifically states that, immediately after the accident, she was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari and on the following day, she was shifted to St.Mary’s Hospital, Ballari. There, the doctors conducted surgery to her head. Thereafter, she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. According to her, she was in the said hospital as an in-patient for 15 days. Thereafter, she took treatment from one Dr.Vishwanath, a Neurosurgeon, later from Private Doctor V.S.Dani, Sr. Medical Practitioner for a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 period of six months. Thus, she specifically states that, she has spent more than Rs.7.00 lakhs towards medical and other incidental expenses. PW.2 Dr.A.S.Dani had come before the Tribunal and has spoken about medical condition of the petitioner, as well as he issuing disability certificate based upon the physical impairments noticed by him when he clinically examined her. He states that, the claimant approached him for treatment as well as to assess the disability. She complained of "intermittent severe head ache associated with projective vomiting and giddiness, blurred vision and diplopia, and even she had difficulty in speech". He has noticed difficulty in hearing, chest pain and calf with expectorate tightening and numbness in the right upper and lower limbs, finger grip strength etc,. He noticed the following physical impairments: 1. "There is swelling and tenderness observed in the left temporal region and occipital region which is due to malunited of fractured occipital bone. 2. A operative healded scar observed in the lower temporal bone she got severe headache which increased its intensity or doing work. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 3. Due to neurological, involvement her speed in slurred and harsensess. 4. She got partial loss of memory. She got tingling and numberless in the right upper and lower limbs, due to peripheral neurological involvement, the muscular tone and mild muscular wastae observed in the right upper and lower limbs, hence finger grip strength in the right upper limb reduced. 5. She has undergone for series investigations including CT Scan of brain, chest in St.Marry Hospital, Ballari and Apollo Hospital, Bangalore, which shows evidence of traumatic fracture of both occipital bone and traumatic left subarachnoid hemorrhage.” 14. According to the doctor, because of the aforesaid physical impairments, this claimant has suffered 70% partial permanent disability compared to whole body. This doctor is cross-examined by the respondents. According to him, he is a MBBS Graduate. He admits that, he is not an Orthopaedician. He has not maintained any records to show about the patients who visit his hospital. He further states that, when claimant came to his hospital, her hearing was good and she has narrated about surgery undergone by her. It is suggested to him that, she has undergone surgery at - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 St.Mary’s Hospital and thereafter she was shifted to higher hospital for further treatment and she has undergone a surgery for Crinotomy and eviction of sub-dural epitome and thereby clot was removed. According to him, as per Ex.P7, her condition is normal and to that effect CT scan was conducted. He deposes ignorance that, before she came to his hospital, whether she had undergone surgery or not at VIMS Hospital. He denied all other suggestions. 15. From the evidence of PW.2, it is very much clear that, he is not a treated doctor and based upon the medical records produced by the claimant, he has issued the disability certificate. So also he is not a qualified Orthopaedician. But, however, the injuries so suffered by the claimant in the said accident show that, she had suffered 'a contusion over left temporal region measuring 3 x 4 cms'. She was referred to the Neurosurgeon and the injuries so stated are grievous in nature as per the wound certificate issued dated 9.9.2017. The medical records do show about conducting of various medical tests, such as CT Chest, CT- brain with angiography and the impression, there - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 was a "fracture of the right occipital bone extended to jugular fossa with associated soft tissue swelling and hematoma" and other parts as per the CT scan reports are normal. Voluminous medical records are produced to show that, she has spent substantial money towards medical expenses. She has produced the bills worth Rs.8.19,530/- and X-rays, so also case records. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration of all these medical records but globally awarded the compensation which is now questioned by the claimant. As per the final bill produced at Sl.Nos.1 to 29 marked as Ex.P17, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, she has spent Rs.1,58,246/- only. She has produced prescription from Sl.No.30 to 35 issued by the St.Mary’s hospital which is dated 15.8.2017 and 16.8.2017. Even it is observed by the Tribunal that, from the bills produced she has spent money of Rs.2,53,083/-. But, observes that, she has spent substantial money which is quite against the medical bills and prescriptions. Tribunal has not considered about spending money towards nutrition, special diet, conveyance, attendant charges etc. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 Possibility of spending money towards the same cannot be ruled out as she had taken treatment at St.Mary’s Hospital, Ballari as well as Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. 16. The physical impairments so stated by the doctor mentioned above are not denied by the respondents. Even the respondents admit by directing suggestions to PW.1 that, this claimant has undergone surgery. As she has taken treatment in the aforesaid hospitals as in-patient, the possibility of spending that much of amount cannot be ruled out. She must have suffered lot. Therefore, substantial compensation is to be awarded towards 'pain. suffering and trauma'. Taking into consideration of the nature of injuries so stated in the wound certificate and the physical impairments noticed by the doctor, if Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards 'pain, suffering and trauma', it would meet the ends of justice. 17. As per the doctor’s evidence, he noticed blurred vision and other disabilities, but, with regard to the hearing problem, he is categorical in his cross-examination that, - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 when the claimant visited his hospital, he has not noticed any hearing impairment. But, other impairments are noticed by him. She was just 32 years at the time of accident. She cannot enjoy her life as she was enjoying prior to the accident. Therefore, towards 'loss of amenities' to be enjoyed in life, if Rs.50,000/- is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. 18. So far as income of the claimant is concerned, to prove her income, she has produced her income tax returns at Ex.P26 to 28, wherein they show that, for the following years, she has earned the total annual income as under: Year Amount declared (in Rs.) 2015-16 2,67,090/- 2016-17 2,69,260/- 2017-18 2,93,200/- 2018-19 2,91,600/- 19. The accident had taken place in the year 2017. Her income for the next year i.e. for the year 2018-19 is Rs.2,91,600/-, thereby, there was no loss of her future income even for the year post accident. According to her, she is doing real estate business and agriculture and has - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 produced the RTC extract to show that, she is doing agriculture and her name is shown jointly with other owners of the property and total extent is shown as 10.51 acres and in her name with others 4 acre 1 cent is shown. But, as per Col.12(9), no crop is shown. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects and especially income tax returns, as there is no decrease in her income, her income is to be assessed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from all sources. In view of the evidence placed on record, though the doctor states about the disability, but, in view of the treatment taken by the claimant as well as the length of treatment taken by her and present medical status, there must have been some improvements in her health condition as she is quite young. So taking into consideration all these aspects, there may be some disability still exist and it may affect her day-to-day activities. Thus, it is held that, she must have suffered 20% disability to the whole body because of the accidental injuries. Therefore, 20% of Rs.20,000/- comes to Rs.4,000/-. As the claimant was aged 32 years, the proper multiplier that is applicable is '16' as per Sarla - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another1. Thus, loss of income due to disability would be Rs.4,000 x 12 months x 16 = Rs.7,68,000/-. Thus, the loss of income due to disability would be Rs.7,68,000/-. So far as medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal in par.15 of the judgment has arrived at an amount of Rs.2,53,083/- towards medical expenses. It is based upon the actual bills. Therefore, no interference is called for with regard to awarding medical expenses, awarded by the Tribunal. 20. Tribunal has not awarded compensation for the other expenses such as nutrition, conveyance, attendant charges etc,. Therefore, if Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for compensation as under: 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 Sl. No. Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 2. Loss of amenities to be enjoyed in the life 50,000/- 3. Loss of future income due to disability 7,68,000/- - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 21. It is held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle which is not disputed by the respondents. As on the date of the accident, insurance Policy was in force and valid. The said vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. No evidence is placed on record by respondent no.3 that, there is violation of policy conditions. Therefore, respondent nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally are held liable to pay compensation. However, under 'law of indemnity', respondent no.3 to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, the aforesaid point is answered in favour of the claimant- appellant. 4. Nutritious food, attendant charges, etc. 50,000/- 5. Medical bills 2,53,083/- Total 12,21,083/- rounded off to 12,21,000/- - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 22. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in-part. (ii) Claimant–appellant is held entitled for Rs.12,21,000/- as against Rs.4,00,000/- thereby, enhancement of Rs.8,21,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (iii) Judgment and award dated 15.06.2019 in MVC No.489/2017 is modified to the above extent. (iv) Respondent nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent no.3 to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, as already almost 8 years have lapsed after occurrence of accident, the entire amount be released - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3189-DB MFA No. 103511 of 2019 in the name of claimant digitally on verification of her identity. (v) Transmit the entire 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