- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23962 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: YALLAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA KABBER, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANUMARAHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIVYA SRIDHARAN S/O. SRIDHARAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. DOOR NO.16, KSRTC LAYOUT, SUBRAMANYAM MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALURU. 2. THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, THE HDFC-ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., I FLOOR, GENEVA HOUSE NO.14, CUNNIGHYAM ROAD, BANGALURU, REP. BY ITS MANGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09-01-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.124/2012 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI AND CONSEQUENTLY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed in MVC No.124/2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case. 4. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries. “1. Fracture of spinal cord. 2. Traumatic brain injury.” 5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering. 25,000 2. Towards diet, nourishment food and attendant charges 1,500 3. Towards loss of earning during period of treatment 1,500 4. Towards medical expenses 55,754 5. Towards loss of amenities 20,000 Total: 1,03,754 6. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, compensation awarded by Tribunal is on lesser side. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award. 7. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering appears to be on lower side. The same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 8. Compensation towards medical expenses of Rs.55,754/- awarded by the Tribunal is as per the medical bills and records. Hence the same is kept intact. 9. The Tribunal has awarded meager compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. The same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 10. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of future earnings due to disability’ on the ground that there is contradictory evidence between the claimant and doctor. The claimant has suffered fracture of spinal cord and traumatic brain injury. Due to the said fracture and injury, the nervous system motor functions are affected and also it affects the earning capacity of the claimant. The claimant-PW.2 is an agriculturist, which is cited by the Tribunal. Ex.P59 is the disability certificate and PW.3 is the doctor, who has issued the disability certificate. The doctor has stated that since the claimant had suffered fracture of spinal cord, there is no strength in the right hand movements and is not able to work after the accident. The claimant had also suffered impairment, therefore, the claimant is not able to walk and stand on his legs. 11. Considering the fact that the claimant was an agriculturist, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not considering the case properly and appreciating the evidence on record. Just because, there is some minor contradictory evidence between the evidence of PW.2-claimant and PW.3- doctor, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 claimant in that regard. This shows insensitivity on the part of the Tribunal while considering the case, as if considering the case beyond reasonable doubt, which is incorrect approach. 12. In the present case, this Court has to consider the case on all its preponderance of probabilities while appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not considering the case properly and appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability. 13. The accident occurred on 10.12.2011. PW.3-doctor has given evidence and also in Ex.P59-disability certificate it is stated that the claimant has suffered 40% disability on the right upper limb and impairment. Therefore, it is just and proper to take 20% as functional disability to the whole body, since the claimant has suffered disability as stated above. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to additional income towards loss of future earnings due to disability. 14. The claimant was aged 30 years at the time of accident. Accordingly as per the age group mentioned in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, and as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Abdul S/o Mehaboob Tahasildar in MFA No.103807/2016 C/w. MFA Nos.103835/2016 & 103807/2018 and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, even in the case of injuries, certain income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. 15. The accident is caused in the year 2011. Therefore, notional income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month is taken into consideration by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 30 years at the time of accident. Therefore, appropriate applicable multiplier is 17. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of the income is to be added towards loss of future prospects in life. Thus, the appellant is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of future income due to disability’ as under: Rs.6,000 + 40% x 20% x 12 x 17 = Rs.3,42,720/-. 16. The claimant was inpatient in hospital from 12.12.2011 to 21.12.2011. But the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation of Rs.1,500/- towards incidental expenses like diet, nourishment, food and attendant charges. The same is enhance to Rs.15,000/-. 17. Further, the Tribunal has shown insensitiveness while awarding loss of earning during period of treatment by awarding a meager compensation of Rs.1,500/- under the said head. But the claimant was inpatient for a period of 10 days from 12.12.2011 to 21.12.2011. The claimant has suffered fracture of spinal cord and traumatic brain injury and due to the said fracture and injury, the nervous system motor functions are affected and also it affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant must have taken treatment and laid up by confining in the home at least for a period of 3 months. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 3 months) under the head loss of income during laid up period. 18. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of future income due to disability. 3,42,720/- 2. Towards loss of pain and suffering. 30,000/- 2. Towards diet, nourishment, food and attendant charges. 15,000/- 3. Towards loss of earning during period of treatment 18,000/- 4. Towards medical expenses 55,754/- 5. Towards loss of amenities 30,000/- Total: 4,91,474/- 19. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,91,474/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.1,03,754/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed in MVC No.124/2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Haveri, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,91,474/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization as against Rs.1,03,754/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv) The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 179 days in filing the appeal. v) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi) Send back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. vii) No order as to costs. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:343 MFA No. 23962 of 2013 viii) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17