- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH 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. 7663 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA REDDY S/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT MADAPATNA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, HARAGADDE POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENALURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANSAR PASHA S/O SABJI SAB, MAJOR, R/AT NO.12/109, B.K. STREET, PALAMANER, CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 001, (EXPARTE). 2. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.-5, 3RD FLOOR, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.6720/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) This appeal is by the injured who has suffered an amputation of both legs above the knee because of the injuries in a road accident on 12.07.2012. The claimant's petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act'] is in MVC No.6720/2012 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIII ACMM, Member, MACT- Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal has allowed this petition in-part granting a total sum of Rs.40,50,000/- with interest at 8% per annum as against the claim of Rs.98,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded this amount under the following heads: Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- Medical expenses including cost of artificial limb conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses Rs.35,50,000/- Loss of income during the laid up period Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs.40,50,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 However, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition as against the Insurer calling upon the Insured to pay the compensation as aforesaid. 2. The claimant has suffered injuries that have resulted in amputation in a road accident on 12.07.2012. The accident is when the claimant was travelling on his motorcycle and the Insured Vehicle [a lorry] dashed from behind. The Tribunal's finding that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent remains unchallenged. The Tribunal has absolved the Insurer of the liability to pay compensation dismissing the claim petition as against it because of the evidence let-in by the Insurer to demonstrate that the driver of the Insured Vehicle did not hold a valid driving license to drive a lorry. The claimant in filing this appeal seeks interference with the Tribunal's decision to absolve the Insurer of the liability to pay compensation and for enhancement. As such, the questions for consideration are: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 [a] whether this Court must interfere to fasten the liability to pay compensation on the Insurer, and if so, should there be any liberty. [b] whether this Court must enhance compensation, and if so, the interest payable on such enhanced compensation. On the Insurer’s liability: 3. Sri T.N. Viswanatha, the learned counsel for the claimant, submits that it indeed could be true that the driver of the Insured Vehicle did not hold a valid license, but that would be extraneous insofar as the liability to pay just and reasonable compensation to the claimant who will be a third party and the Insurer, because breach of a policy condition is established, must be at liberty to recover the compensation paid to the claimant from the Insured. Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, the learned counsel for the Insurer, is heard in the light of this canvas to decide on the first question. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 3.1 This Court must opine that the incontrovertible position for this Court, after the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Yellavva1, especially when the accident is prior to the 2019 amendment of the MV Act, is that the Insurer must indeed pay the compensation awarded to a third party claimant and be at liberty to recover the same from the Insured as contemplated under Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure. The claimant, undeniably, is a third party, and therefore, the Insurer must pay the compensation to him and recover the amount so paid from the Insurer. The first question is answered accordingly. 4. Sri T.N. Viswanatha next canvasses that this Court must enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal granting under [a] conveyance nourishment charges and attendant charges, [b] 1 ILR 2020 Kar 2239 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 compensation for adverse impact on the claimant's marital life and [c] future costs of artificial limbs. The learned counsel also canvasses for a higher assessment of permanent disability with just enhancement towards loss of future earning capacity with addition towards future prospects. On the claimant's case for enhancement towards conveyance/ nourishment/ attendant charges: 5. Sri T.N.Viswanath submits that the undisputed facts are that the claimant was hospitalized on multiple occasions: on 12.07.2012 [the date of accident] and between 18.05.2013 and 26.05.2013. The claimant's second hospitalization was for almost 8 months. The learned counsel argues that therefore it is only reasonable to opine that the claimant would have suffered substantial charges towards transportation, nourishment and attendant charges. Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda is heard in the light of this claim. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 5.1 The Tribunal, with little elaboration, has granted a sum of Rs.35,50,000/- [inclusive of conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses] when admittedly the medical bills, including the costs of artificial limb, is in a sum of Rs.35,43,500/-. If the claimant has undergone hospitalization for prolonged period with loss of both the limbs almost completely, it only stands to reasons that the expenditure under each of these heads will be substantial and not in a sum of Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, this Court opines that the claimant is indeed entitled for additional compensation under conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges, but the award must be just and reasonable. This Court, on a careful consideration, opines that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under these heads will be just and reasonable. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 On the cost of replacement of artificial limb and loss of marital life: 6. The claimant has suffered an amputation of both the lower limbs, not just above the knee but almost from the beginning of the thigh. Further, the claimant, as is stated by Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, had purchased artificial limbs even when he participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal. The claimant has produced bills issued by M/s.Ottobock for almost Rs.13,50,000/- asserting that he has paid such amount as cost of the first set of artificial limbs. The Tribunal has granted Rs.35,50,000/ including the aforementioned sum of Rs.13,50,000/-. There is no dispute that the remaining Rs.22,00,000/- is for the other medical expenditure as per the Bills produced. 6.1 Sri T.N. Viswanatha submits that this Court must, as is done by the Apex Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Sabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, UP - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 State Road Transport Corporation2, grant the cost of replacement of the artificial limbs and the cost of maintenance because it is generally accepted that the artificial limbs will have to be replaced every 15 years and that the claimant, who was aged about 29 years as of the date of the accident, will definitely have to replace artificial limbs twice during his lifetime. The claimant should have examined somebody who could have authoritatively spoken about the quality of the artificial limbs, their durability, the maintenance regime and the costs including the cost of replacement, but the claimant has not let-in any evidence in this regard. In the absence of such material, the compensation, which has to be just and reasonable, can only be conservative. This Court, on an anxious consideration of the circumstances, is of 2 (2023) 20 SCC 774. The Apex Court has awarded separate amount towards cost of replacement of the artificial limbs and maintenance. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 the view that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would be just and reasonable on this score. 6.2 This Court must also observe that the claimant's marital life must be adversely affected because of the amputation of both legs. There must be just compensation for this apart from the compensation awarded towards loss of amenities. This Court, though Sri T. N. Viswanatha argues for a very substantial award under this head, is inclined to grant another conservative amount as is canvassed by Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda. This Court opines that the conservative amount towards adverse impact on the claimant’s marital life must be in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. On the loss of future earning capacity: 7. The Tribunal has awarded no compensation to the claimant towards loss of future earning capacity because of its opinion that the claimant, who was engaged in the business of sales - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 and maintenance of batteries, has flourished in such business even after the accident. The Tribunal's conclusions in this regard are essentially based on the Income Tax Returns [Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.17] that are filed. 7.1 If Sri. T. N. Viswanatha argues that this Court must take the loss of earning capacity taking the functional disability at 100% because of the loss of both the limbs, Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda emphasizes that the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under this head because the claimant has flourished in his business with the assistance of another and that at the most this Court can grant compensation for the loss of claimant's personal supervision over the business taking notional income based on appropriate functional disability. 7.2 This Court must observe that if there is amputation above knee of both the limbs, the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 percentage of physical disability according to Schedule I of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 will be 100%, but in the present case, the claimant is not an employee but in business [mostly as a self- employed person]. The evidence can be read to infer that he has flourished in business, but that is because of his dependency on another. However, the claimant even with the artificial limbs will have to manage his business with undeniable constraints and in that there is some inevitable loss of functional disability rendering him dependent on others. The claimant is in the business of sale and service of batteries where his participation with movement will be crucial. 7.3 The Doctor, who is examined as PW.2, has opined that the claimant's disability is 85% but then this Court must consider functional disability that is specific to the claimant’s circumstances. This Court, in the facts and circumstances in the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 claimant's circumstances, is of the view that the functional disability is 75%, and the loss of earning capacity must be accordingly computed taking the income as is established. The claimant has produced and marked Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2012-13, which is filed on 02.06.2013, much before the date of the accident. According to these returns, the claimant's gross income is Rs.2,52,558/- and he has paid a sum of Rs.5,170/- as income tax. 7.4 The claimant's income therefore after the deduction of income tax must be taken in a sum of Rs.2,47,388/- annually. There must be addition towards future prospects, and the claimant was aged 29 years as of the date of the accident. The addition towards future prospects must be 40% and the multiplier will be 17. The loss of earning capacity is computed thus: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 The claimant is thus entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.53,15,900/-, and this computation is brought by the following comparative table: By the Tribunal By this Court Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Medical expenses including cost of artificial limb/ Conveyance/ nourishment and attendant charges Rs. 35,50,000/- Rs.35,50,000/- [Medical Expenses and Cost of Artificial Limbs purchased] Rs.3,00,000/- [Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges] Details for Computation of Loss of Future Earning Capacity [Rs] Monthly Income Rs. 20,616/- Addition towards Future Prospects 40% Rs. 8,246/- Monthly Income + Future Prospects Rs. 28,862/- Annual Income Rs.3,46,344/- Percentage of Disability 75% Rs.2,59,758/- Multipler 17 Loss of Earning Capacity Rs.44,15,886/- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 Conservative sum towards replacement and repair of artificial limbs Nil Rs.5,00,000/- Impact on marital life Nil Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of income during the laid-up period Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of future earning capacity Nil Rs.44,15,886/- Loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.40,50,000/- Rs.93,65,886/- Enhanced compensation [Rounded off] Rs.53,15,886/- [Rs.53,15,900/-] On the rate of interest: 8. The next question at the instance of the Insurer is the interest that the Insurer must pay. Sri.B.C. Shivanne Gowda emphasizes that this Court must grant interest at the rate of 6% as against 8% per annum because the Tribunal has not reasoned why a higher rate of interest must be granted and he also underscores that the Insurer is now called upon to pay though with liberty to recover and the Insurer did not have the opportunity to challenge the grant of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 interest at 8% per annum because the claim petition as against it stood dismissed. 8.1 Sri. T. N. Viswanatha, in response, submits that this Court may not interfere with the interest awarded at 8% because though the accident is in the year 2012 resulting in the appellant's amputation of both legs above knee and he has incurred expenses in excess of Rs.50,00,000/- he has not received any amount in all these years. Indeed, there is considerable force in the submissions by Sri.T.N. Viswanatha but then the award of interest must be as is normally done unless justified. In the peculiarities emphasized, this Court is of the view that the Insurer must pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the amount that is awarded by Tribunal, but on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum. Hence, the following: - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 ORDER In the light of the afore, the appeal is allowed- in-part modifying the Tribunal's impugned Judgment and Award dated 24.02.2015 in MVC No.6720/2012 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIII ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru in the following terms: [A] The Insurer [the second respondent] is called upon to pay Rs.40,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant with interest at 8% from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The Insurer [the second respondent] is also called upon to pay enhanced compensation of Rs.53,15,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25164-DB MFA No. 7663 of 2015 [B] The Insurer [the second respondent] is reserved with liberty to recover the amount paid with costs from the Insured [the first respondent] and by enforcement of this award. [C] The Insurer [the second respondent] is called upon to deposit the amounts as aforesaid within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The registry is directed to transmit Trial Court Records expeditiously SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SA ct:sr