- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3911 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIM HUB, NO.69, II FLOOR, J.P. & JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE, NEAR ICICI FIRST SQUARE, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052, BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (CLAIMS). …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LINGARAJ H.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ADITYA VALLI K NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O SAMBASIVA RAO W/O N. YUVARAJA SHEKHAR R/A 45-46-26-2/1, GFA SUJANA ENCLAVE, SRINIVASA NAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 001. 2. IMTIAZ AHMED AGE NOT MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM PETITION S/O NOOR MOHAMMED R/A NO. 16B, GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, D.J. HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T. GURUDEVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.23, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.4863/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ASCJ AND MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,98,000/- WITH 9% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated 02.03.2017 passed in MVC.No.4863/2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & V Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru2. The tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs.4,98,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. 2. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. Lingaraj H.S., for the appellant/insurer and learned counsel Sri. K.T. Gurudeva Reddy for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The notice to respondent no.2 has been dispensed with. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 3. The findings of the tribunal on liability and negligence are not under challenge and have attained finality. Hence, the only aspect that is required to be adjudicated in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 4. The primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the tribunal has erred in awarding future medical expenses of Rs.3,50,000/-, merely relying upon the testimony of doctor (PW2), who has not treated the claimant. It is further contended that the claimant is a public sector employee having medical reimbursement facility as also a mediclaim policy and has availed reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for her treatment. That the claimant would also be entitled for reimbursement of future medical expenses as and when the same are incurred. It is also contended that the rate of interest awarded is on the higher side. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant contends that doctor (PW2) has clearly deposed that due to the accident there is near total amputation of the right ear of the claimant, due to which, the claimant requires ear re-construction in stages as also tissue expansion. It is contended that the loss of the right ear would impact the daily activities of the claimant and the doctor (PW2) having specifically deposed with regard to the requirement of future procedures, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant has also filed I.A.1/25 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to produce a letter dated 27.06.2025 issued by Rangadore Memorial Hospital, wherein it has been placed on record that the surgery would cost around Rs.3,00,000/-. It is deposed in the affidavit accompanying the application that the document sought to be produced along with the application could not be produced during the pendency of the proceedings before the tribunal since - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 the claimant met the treating doctor at a charitable hospital, who has estimated the cost of future medical expenses which was sought to be placed on record. 7. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and material on record, including the material of the Tribunal, have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether I.A.1/25 is required to be allowed? ii. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal as also the interest is excess and liable to be re-assessed? Re.question No.(i): 8. I.A.1/25 has been filed by respondent No.1/ claimant in the present appeal seeking leave of this court to produce the letter dated 27.06.2025, which is annexed along with the application. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it is deposed that the said letter was issued when the claimant consulted the treating doctor during the pendency of the appeal. In view of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.1/25 is allowed as it is necessary that the said letter also be taken into consideration while adjudicating the above appeal. Accordingly, the said letter dated 27.06.2025 is taken on record. Hence question No.(i) is answered in the affirmative. Re.question No.(ii): 9. The accident which occurred on 16.09.2015 is undisputed as also the fact that the claimant sustained various injuries which resulted in near total amputation of the right ear. The claimant who was aged 29 years as on the date of the accident was treated conservatively and was treated as an inpatient from 17.09.2015 to 25.09.2015, i.e., for a period of 9 days. It is also forthcoming that the claimant was working as an Assistant Officer in the New India Assurance Company Limited and the pay slip (Ex.P11) demonstrates that she had a gross salary of Rs.40,359/-, excluding deductions. The bank statement (Ex.P12) also substantiates the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 10. The tribunal has considered the material on record as to the leave that the claimant has taken during the period of treatment and awarded adequate compensation for the same. The tribunal has also properly assessed the disability pursuant to the testimony of the doctor (PW2). 11. The primary aspect that is contended in the present appeal is with regard to the future medical expenses. The tribunal while considering the same has noticed the testimony of PW2, wherein it is stated that the approximate cost of the ear re-construction in stages will be around Rs.3,50,000/-. No material was placed on record regarding the same. The letter dated 27.06.2025 produced along with I.A.1/25 discloses that the doctor has estimated the future cost of treatment as Rs.3,00,000/-. 12. However, it is pertinent to note that the claimant is admittedly working as noticed above and the fact that the claimant is entitled to medical reimbursement facility is not disputed. The claimant has not yet - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 undergone the re-construction procedure despite passage of nearly ten years from the date of occurrence of the accident and has hence not yet incurred the medical expenses. 13. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the cost of the said procedure is being prohibitive the same has not yet been done and that the claimant intends to undergo the said procedure as the loss of the right ear impacts the daily life of the claimant. Having regard to the fact that the right ear is amputated, there is justification in the contention of the claimant that future re-construction surgery also requires to be undergone. However in view of the admitted position that the claimant is entitled to medical reimbursement facility from her employer and that the cost of treatment would be reimbursed to a large extent, keeping in mind the fact that the claimant has not yet undergone the re-construction procedure, it is just and proper that the cost of future medical expenses be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 reassessed as Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.3,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 14. It is pertinent to note that the doctor has assessed the disability at 7.5% to the head and neck and 2.5% to the whole body. The tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income since the claimant has continued to remain employed. However having regard to the admitted fact that there has been amputation of the right ear, the compensation towards loss of amenities is required to be awarded on a higher side. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of amenities is re-assessed as Rs.75,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 15. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, the compensation towards pain and suffering is re-assessed as Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the tribunal. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 16. The medical expenses awarded by the tribunal in a sum of Rs.7,168/- is as per actual bills and the same is just and proper. However it is expedient that the same be rounded off as Rs.10,000/-. 17. Accordingly, the total compensation is re- assessed as follows: Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Awarded by the Tribunal (`) Amount awarded by this Court (`) 1 Pain and suffering 40,000.00 50,000.00 2 Medical expenses 7,168.00 10,000.00 3 Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000.00 20,000.00 4 Loss of income during treatment period 40,000.00 40,000.00 5 Loss of amenities 40,000.00 75,000.00 6 Future medical expenses 3,50,000.00 50,000.00 Total 4,97,168.00 2,45,000.00 18. The tribunal has awarded interest at 9% p.a. Taking judicial notice of the interest payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper that the rate of interest be reassessed as 7% on the compensation as re-assessed by this Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 19. Hence, question No.(ii) is answered in the affirmative. 20. Hence the following: ORDER i. The above appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 02.03.2017 passed in MVC. No. 4863/2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & V Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru is modified to the extent of holding that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- together with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till date of payment. The judgment and award of the tribunal in all other respects remains unaltered; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27510 MFA No. 3911 of 2017 iii. The amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeal together with the records be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith; iv. The insurer (Appellant herein /respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) shall deposit the remaining compensation together with accrued interest, if any, within six weeks; v. In the event the appellant has deposited any excess amount, the same be refunded to the appellant. vi. The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly. vii. The entire compensation together with accrued interest be released to the claimant. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22