- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3676 OF 2020 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3715 OF 2021 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4070 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 3676/2020 BETWEEN: SRIDHARA N., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O NANJUNDAPPA, R/A IDGURU VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 208. …APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRISHIKA SAMAJA, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. P.N.NAGARAJA, MAJOR, S/O SRI KRISHNA MURTHY, R/A POUTTAPURAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S-5, III FLOOR, MANARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. SRI ADINARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, S/O AKKALAPPA, R/A KADEHALLI VILLAGE, HAMPASANDRA POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 5. NAGAESHWARA REDDY, MAJOR, S/O ISHWARA REDDY, NO.212/275, SAJEEVANAGAR, BETAMCHERLA KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH - 518 452. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2023, NOTICE TO R2, R4 AND R5 IS DISPENSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2014 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR. IN MFA NO. 3715/2021 BETWEEN: SANTHOSH S., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O SATHYAPPA, R/A IDGURU VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISRICT - 561 208. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRISHIKA SAMAJA, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. P.N.NAGARAJA, MAJOR, S/O SRI KRISHNA MURTHY, R/AT POUTTAPURAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S-5, III FLOOR, MANARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. SRI ADINARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, S/O AKKALAPPA, R/AT KADEHALLI VILLAGE, HAMPASANDRA POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 5. NAGESHWARA REDDY, MAJOR, S/O ISHWARA REDDY, NO.212/275, SAJEEVANAGAR, BETAMACHERLA KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH - 518 452. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.04.2023, NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 IS DISPENSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.216 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR. IN MFA NO. 4070/2021 BETWEEN: GOPALA REDDY K., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 S/O KRISHNAPPA, R/A IDGURU VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 208. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRISHIKA SAMAJA, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. P.N.NAGARAJA, MAJOR, S/O SRI KRISHNA MURTHY, R/AT POUTTAPURAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., S-5, III FLOOR, MANARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. SRI ADINARAYANAPPA, MAJOR, S/O AKKALAPPA, R/AT KADEHALLI VILLAGE, HAMPASANDRA POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 5. NAGESHWARA REDDY, MAJOR, S/O ISHWARA REDDY, NO.21/275, SAJEEVANAGAR, BETAMACHERLA KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH - 518 452. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 IS DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2025) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.231/2014 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 21.04.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC Nos.216/2014, 230/2014 and 231/2014. These appeals are founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation. 2. All these cases are arising out of a common accident and evidence is adduced before the same Court, a common judgment is passed. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to pass a common judgment in all these cases. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under: That on 09.01.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., the claimants were travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-40-9282, at that time, a Tractor and Trailer bearing registration Nos.AP-21-X-8846 and AP-21- X-8847 came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the auto rickshaw. Due to the said impact, the inmates of the auto rickshaw sustained grievous injuries and they were immediately shifted to the nearby hospital, where they took treatment. Due to the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident, all the claimants filed separate claim petitions seeking compensation against the respondents. 4.1 On service of notice, respondent Nos.4 and 5 remained absent and they were placed ex parte. Other respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements, denying the averments - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 made in the claim petitions and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. 4.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC No.216/2014, Rs.3,87,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC No.230/2014 and Rs.2,24,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC No.231/2014 and directed respondent No.1-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within thirty days. 4.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for claimants that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal has failed to assess the proper disability despite the opinion expressed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 by the Doctor-PW.4. The tribunal has taken the income on the lower side. It is also contended that under other heads also, compensation awarded is meager and the same requires enhancement. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 6. Per contra, Sri Jwala Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of the tribunal and contends that just and reasonable compensation is awarded in all these cases. The income adopted is correct. The Doctor examination has been analyzed by the tribunal and has correctly provided the disability, which does not call for interference. Also, the compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable, which does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for claimants and learned counsel for Insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and injuries - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 sustained by the claimants in the road traffic accident are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P92 in these cases by way of common evidence. The negligence has been rightly attributed against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer, which has not been questioned and the same is retained. In MVC No.216/2014 8. It is stated that age of the claimant was 22 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The tribunal has assessed the disability at 5% and the appropriate multiplier applied by the tribunal is '18', which do not call for interference and the same are retained. The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.8,500/- for the accident of the year 2014. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.8,500/-. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 Rs.91,800/- (Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 18 x 5%) as against Rs.86,400/- awarded by the tribunal. 8.1 The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities, future unhappiness and attendance charges. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, future unhappiness. 8.2 The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head. 8.3 The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.8,500/- per month, the claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500/- x 3) under this head. 8.4 The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards marriage prospects, as the claimant was 22 years old and unmarried. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, as there is amputation of the middle finger. 8.5 In view of the above, the claimant in MVC No.216/2014 shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,87,300/- as against Rs.1,17,000/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of future income due to disability 91,800-00 Pain and suffering 50,000-00 Loss of amenities, future unhappiness 50,000-00 Conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses 20,000-00 Loss of income during laid up period 25,500-00 Loss of marriage prospects 50,000-00 TOTAL 2,87,300-00 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 In MVC No.230/2014 9. It is stated that age of the claimant was 22 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '18', which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The income taken by the tribunal is Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.8,500/- for the accident of the year 2014. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.8,500/-. 9.1 PW.4-Doctor has opined the disability to the extent of 74.44% to the right lower, left lower limb and right upper limb and 24.8% to the whole body, whereas the tribunal has assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body. The disability is reduced by the tribunal on the ground that the Doctor, who opined the disability is not the Doctor, who treated the patient, so also neither as he examined the patient while assessing the disability. To - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 some extent, this can be accepted and at the same time, when such disability is opined by an expert namely the Doctor in the field of medicine, it becomes the duty of the opponent i.e., the Insurance Company or the person controverting the same to provide another opinion from the Doctor based on the examination of the patient, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, what is done is a guesswork, which again this Court will have to take a midway guesswork in the opinion expressed by the Doctor to that of the tribunal. Weightage could be given more to the Doctor as he is an expert in the field of medicine, whereas the assessment by the tribunal is merely a guesswork. As the doctor has opined the disability at 24.8% to the whole body and the tribunal assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body, this Court deems it appropriate to assess 20% as disability to the whole body. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.3,67,200/- (Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 18 x 20%) as against Rs.2,59,200/- awarded by the tribunal. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 9.2 The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities, future unhappiness and attendance charges. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, future unhappiness. 9.3 The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses. However, the claimant was inpatient for 63 days. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.63,000/- under this head. 9.4 The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.71,208/- towards medical expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 9.5 The tribunal awarded Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.8,500/- per month, the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, claimant would be entitled to Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500/- x 3) under this head. 9.6 In view of the above, the claimant in MVC No.230/2014 shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,36,908/- as against Rs.3,87,000/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of future income due to disability 3,67,200-00 Pain and suffering 50,000-00 Loss of amenities, future unhappiness 50,000-00 Conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses 63,000-00 Loss of income during laid up period 25,500-00 Future medical expenses 10,000-00 Medical expenses 71,208-00 TOTAL 6,36,908-00 In MVC No.231/2014 10. It is stated that age of the claimant was 22 years as on the date of occurrence of accident. The tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '18', which does not call for interference and the same is retained. The income taken - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 by the tribunal is Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income, no documentary proof is produced before the tribunal to show the income. However, the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes the income of Rs.8,500/- for the accident of the year 2014. Accordingly, income is taken as Rs.8,500/-. 10.1 PW.4-Doctor has opined the disability to the extent of 69.52% to the right upper and lower limb and 23.17% to the whole body, whereas the tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body. Again as stated in the preceding paragraph with regard to the medical evidence of the expert on that of the guesswork done by the tribunal, this Court deems it appropriate to take the disability at 15% to the whole body as against 10%. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.2,75,400/- (Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 18 x 15%) as against Rs.1,72,800/- awarded by the tribunal. 10.2 The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities, future unhappiness - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 and attendance charges. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, future unhappiness. 10.3 The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head. 10.4 The tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.1,100/- towards medical expenses, which do not call for interference and the same are retained. 10.5 The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. In view of this Court enhancing the income to Rs.8,500/- per month, the claimant would require atleast three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 activities. Therefore, claimant shall be entitled to Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500/- x 3) under this head. 10.6 In view of the above, the claimant in MVC No.231/2014 shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- as against Rs.2,24,000/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of future income due to disability 2,75,400-00 Pain and suffering 50,000-00 Loss of amenities, future unhappiness 50,000-00 Conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses 20,000-00 Loss of income during laid up period 25,500-00 Future medical expenses 20,000-00 Medical expenses 1,100-00 TOTAL 4,42,000-00 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 21.04.2018 passed in MVC Nos.216/2014, 230/2014 and 231/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, is modified; - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 iii) The claimant in MVC No.216/2014 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,87,300/- as against Rs.1,17,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; iv) The claimant in MVC No.230/2014 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,36,908/- as against Rs.3,87,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; v) The claimant in MVC No.231/2014 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- as against Rs.2,24,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.; vi) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by respondent No.1-Insurance Company with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vii) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimants respectfully to their account upon claimants furnishing the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:6689 MFA No. 3676 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 3715 of 2021 MFA No. 4070 of 2021 required Bank details/upon proper identification; viii) The original records, if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal forthwith; ix) The claimants would not be entitled to the interest for the delay period; x) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact; xi) Ordered accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same pales into insignificance. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK