- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6388 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O SHIVAPPA, R/AT GANDHINAGAR VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, NOW R/AT GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR TOWN. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PAYAL Dechamma C.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C. NAGARAJ S/O SEENAPPA, ONION AND POTATO MERCHANT, 3RD CROSS, TANK BUND ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN. 2. ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANGALYA PUNARBHAV, N-132, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.18, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.7.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.117/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 29th July 2016, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Kolar, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.117/2015, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 07.12.2014, at around 9.30 a.m., the claimant met with an accident at Chelur Circle of Chintamani, due to rash - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.KA- 40-9065 by its driver. As a result, the claimant sustained fractures. He took treatment as an inpatient and spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Both appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 denied the contents of the claim petition and further contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, if the claim petition is allowed, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation. 5. Respondent No.2 denied the contents of the claim petition and it also denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 conditions of policy of insurance by respondent No.1 and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 7. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 14 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. The respondents have not led any oral and documentary evidence. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 40 years, his earnings as Rs.6,000/- p.m., disability as 15% to the whole body and assessed the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- Future loss of income 1,62,000/- Treatment and medical expenses 2,00,000/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 10,000/- Loss of amenities 50,000/- Total 4,72,000/- 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2. 11. The fact of the accident is not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of compensation awarded under some of the heads is inadequate. The disability assessed is insufficient. Considering the evidence of PW-2, the income considered by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation. He further stated that no amount of compensation was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 awarded for 'loss of income during laid up period'. It may be considered. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the Tribunal, on the basis of available materials, awarded a just and reasonable amount of compensation and this does not call for any interference by this court. 14. Following point arise for consideration: (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 15. The claimant has sustained the following injuries: "i. Crush injury over the right ankle and foot with compound fracture of right calennum. ii. Cut and lacerated wound over right foot with tender rupture.. iii. Fracture of right superior and interior public rami with subluxation of public symphgsis and subluxation of left sacro-illiac joint with illium fracture. iv. Infective compound rapture of foot muscles." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 16. Details of treating the claimant as inpatient was not furnished. As per the evidence of PW-2, the claimant was treated as inpatient for about 5 days. Based on the medical records produced before the Court, the Tribunal rightly accepted that the claimant had sustained the above said injuries. 17. PW-2 in his evidence stated about injuries sustained by the claimant and other disabilities. According to his evidence, the claimant is suffering from 100% functional disability. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poongavanam Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another1. On the basis of the facts of that case and also on the basis of opinion of the medical board, the Tribunal accepted the disability at 90%. The High Court reconsidering the same assessed disability as 30%. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the said reduction in the permanent disability is incorrect and evidence of the 1 2022 ACJ 205 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 doctor is to be accepted. Looking to the facts of that case the Hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that not accepting opinion of medical board was incorrect. In this case claimant has sustained fracture of right calcennum. As per PW.2, claimant is suffering from permanent disability up to 10% No prudent man can believe that fracture of calcennum leads to 100% functional disability. On the basis of such unreliable facts, PW-2 assessed disability. The extent of disability has to be assessed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case as well as credibility of the medical evidence provided. It cannot be considered universally in all the cases. Therefore, the law laid down in the above said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Looking at the materials placed on record as well as evidence of PW-2, permanent disability is taken as 20% instead of 15% as assessed by the Tribunal. 18. According to the claimant, she was working as a coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, there - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 is no reliable evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the national income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month, which appears to be on the lower side. Following the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.8,500/- p.m. On re-appreciating the materials available on record, the amount of compensation awarded under some of the heads are inadequate; it needs enhancement. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 75,000/- Medical expenses 2,00,000/- Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000/- Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.8,500/- x 3) 25,500/- Loss of future earning capacity due to disability (Rs.8,500/- x 12 x 15 x 20%) 3,06,000/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 Loss of amenities 50,000/- Total 6,76,500/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off- 4,72,000/- 2,04,500/- 2,05,000/- 19. The claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition till its realisation. 20. Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay the said amount. Accordingly, the above said point is answered partly in the affirmative. 21. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 29th July 2016, passed in MVC.No.117/2015, by the Principal Senior Civil Judges and MACT, Kolar, stands modified. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25407 MFA No. 6388 of 2016 iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. vi) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK