- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4315 OF 2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TP-HUB, NO.18, KRUSHIBHAVAN, 6TH LOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, OPP:HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE -5 60001, BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O MAHESH., ADV.) AND: 1. GADI NANDAGOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O GADI NARASIMHA REDDY, PERMANENT RESIDING OF NO.1/34, RANGAMAPALLI, PULLAMAPETA, CUDDAPAH, BANGALORE - 560013. 2. JIM REEVES P.J. MAJOR, S/O JESUDAS, R/O POONTHOTTATHIL, SITARA, KUNDUKKAD, UROKAD, KURICHIKKARA, THRISSUR-401102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T. GURUDEVAPRASAD, ADV FOR R1, R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22/02/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1484/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIV ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-20), MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.42,92,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Insurance company, challenging the Judgment and award dated 22nd February 2019 passed in MVC No.1484 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and V Additional Judge (SCCH-20), Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), on the ground of liability and also on quantum. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 18th February 2018 at about 4:50 pm when the petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05/HM-9162 on Mahadevapura Ring Road, a car bearing registration No.KL- 17/H-700 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human lives, came from opposite direction, that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 too on the wrong side, dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle and also dashed to another car bearing registration No.KL-58/J-8200, owing to the impact of which the said car colluded with another Innova vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/AD-6044, which toppled from the flyover. In the said accident, the rider of motorcycle suffered multiple fractures and was immediately shifted to Manipal Hospital where he was admitted as an inpatient for a period of 10 days and underwent multiple surgeries. After discharge from hospital on 28th February 2018, petitioner had taken regular follow-up treatment. For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident, he filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal, by its impugned Judgment, awarded compensation of Rs.42,92,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Appellant-Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal, challenging the said Judgment and award on the ground of liability as well as questioning the quantum. 3. Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company would submit that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, contrary to law - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 and same not sustainable in the eye of law. He would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have seen that there was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the Insurance Company was kept in dark both by the insured and the concerned investigating officer in respect of the alleged accident. The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence lacks objective consideration of material evidence placed on record, as there was no independent evidence except self-testimony of the injured, as also, the documents produced were not proved as required and as such, have no evidentiary value. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability of the injured at 25% to the whole body and awarded exorbitant compensation under the head loss of future earning. He further submits that the income taken by the Tribunal is also on the higher side as the Bank statement given by the injured was only up to 29th June 2018, and the statement for further months was held back for obvious reasons known to the claimant. 4. The other ground taken by the appellant is that claim petition is not maintainable in law or on facts for non-joinder of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 proper and necessary parties. He would submit that the drivers, owners and insurers of other three vehicles, which are stated to have been involved in the alleged accident, are not made as parties to the proceedings. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum. On all these grounds he sought to allow the appeal and to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri K.T. Gurudev Prasad, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent claimant would submit that the Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before it in its proper perspective and has awarded the compensation which is just and proper and does not call for interference in this appeal. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the materials placed before us as well as perused the impugned judgment. 7. It is not in dispute as to occurrence of motor vehicle accident on 18th February, 2018 and the involvement of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 motorcycle and offending car, as also, the appellant suffering injuries in the said accident. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the injured at Rs.93,000/-. On the basis of the evidence of PW1 and PW3 and also the documents Exhibits P25 Company ID and Exhibit P26-three salary slips, the Tribunal has observed that the salary of the claimant for the months of February and March, 2018 was Rs.1,07,700/-. Considering all these oral and documentary evidence, and after deduction of Tax, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.93,000/- per month for assessing the compensation to be awarded under the head loss of future income. The same cannot not be found fault with. 9. With regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability to the whole body at 25% is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has been inflicted with the following injuries: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 1. Left humerus fracture (neck, shaft supradondylar fracture) 2. Left 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 RIB fractures with milk pneumothorax; 3. Left lung contusion; 4. Left Iliac bone fracture extending to left Acetabulum and pubic Rami; 5. Right Iliac bone fracture; 6. Left L1 to L5 (lumber vertebra transverse process fracture) 10. The claimant was an inpatient for eleven days from 18th to 28th February, 2018. The documents produced reveals the nature of treatment given to the claimant. PW4 an Orthopedic Surgeon, has deposed that the petitioner has suffered 60% disability to the left upper limb and 20% to the whole body and 10% added for complications like infection and 23% disability is given for pelvic and left lower limb which is about 11.5% to the whole body and the total disability to the whole body disability is 31.5%. The Tribunal at paragraph 11 of the judgment, has observed as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 "11. The PW2 is Medical Record officer at Manipal Hospital, and he produced case sheet and outpatient records which corroborate the nature of treatment given to the petitioner. The PW-4 is doctor and on Orthopedic surgeon who examined petitioner to assess physical disability. According to him, the petitioners suffered 60% disability of Left Upper limb and 20% to the whole body. 10% added for complications like infection. Likewise, 23% disability is given for Pelvic and Left lower Limb which is about 11/.5% to the whole body. Therefore, total whole body disability is 20% + 11.5% = 31.5%. It is the permanent residual physical disability. The Petitioner has to undergo another surgery for humorous both the upper end and lower end. There is no doubt about competency of the doctor as PW-4. The 6th & 7th ribs are united. There was no surgery of ribs fracture. Blunt injuries are seen in lungs. It is called as Lang Contusion. Though PW-4 did not consult a pulmonologist, it does affect his evidence because he did not give disability for lung contusion. There is malunion at upper level, union at middle level and lower level of humorous. Implants are present in all levels. He has formed an opinion on the basis of his expertise and experience. The petitioner is able to do activities but with difficulties. He suffers difficulties to do physical activities. Nothing material is elicited to doubt the testimony or competency of the Doctor. In view of it, whole body of disability 30% is accepted." 11. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the disability to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23974-DB MFA No. 4315 of 2019 whole body is to be accepted at 30%. However, the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability only at 25% and awarded compensation of Rs.36,27,000/- towards loss of future income and the same is just and proper. Further, considering twenty medical bills produced at Exhibit P20, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,64,234/- towards medical bills. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- each towards conveyance allowance and attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities, which cannot be said to be on higher side. In our considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant interference in this appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50