- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. KAVERAPPA S/O. B. K. JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, KASHINAGAR, AMRUTHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. LAKSHMANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWTHAM. P. V. S/O. VASU GANAPATHI PONNIMADA, NO.16, 2ND FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, AECS LAYOUT, OPPOSITE PADMINI ENCLAVE, SANJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094. 2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 69, 3RD FLOOR, J. P. AND DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR NEGAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4179/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-10, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant/claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 23.12.2019 passed in MVC.No.4179/2018 by the XIV Additional, Small Cause Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-10), has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: That on 04.06.2018 at about 04.30 a.m., when the claimant was proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA-01-MQ-6806 on Bangalore-Hyderabad NH-44, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, dashed against the moving vehicle. Because of this impact, the petitioner/claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. This fact is not in dispute. With regard to the findings of tribunal, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the respondents have not challenged the said finding. Therefore, the said finding has attained finality. 4. Now, the claimant/appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation. The learned tribunal, considering the evidence placed on record by the claimant, awarded the compensation under different heads, as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation Amount in Rs. 01 Loss of future income 3,16,800/- 02 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 03 Loss of amenities and happiness 25,000/- 04 Attendant charges, extra nutrition food and conveyance charges 3,000/- 05 Loss of income during the treatment period and rest period 11,000/- 06 Medical expenses 6,42,085/- TOTAL Rs.10,27,885/- 5. According to learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, the claimant was initially employed as a Restaurant Manager and he was earning sufficiently as per the documents produced. He was an income tax assessee. He would further submit that, his income taken at Rs.11,000/- is on lower side. He would further submit that, even towards the loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness, attendant charges etc., loss of income during treatment period so also medical expenses, so arrived at by the tribunal is on lower side. As the claimant has suffered the head injury, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 the disability ought to have been taken at 33% as assessed by the doctor. He further submits that, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, whatever the compensation awarded by the tribunal is based upon the evidence placed on record. Such compensation so awarded requires no interference. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Before the Tribunal, claimant himself entered the witness box as PW1 and stated that, he was admitted in the hospital for 3 times and totally he was in the hospital as inpatient for 26 days and to that effect discharge summaries are produced. According to him, during the course of treatment CT, head and brain scan were done, X-ray were taken and they revealed post traumatic head injury with right FTP acte SDH-post Craniotomy status, severe injuries to hand, legs and other grievous injuries all over the body. According to him, he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 has spent more than Rs.8,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, he states that, prior to the accident, he was working in Hyderabad and was earning Rs.79,276/- p.m., from the said income he used to maintain his family. Because of these injuries, he has sustained permanent disability. PW1 is thoroughly cross-examined by respondent No.2. He admits that, in the said accident, he has sustained head injury and facial injuries and further denied all the suggestions directed to him. 8. To prove that, he has sustained permanent disability, he has examined PW2-Dr.Sreedhara.K.C., wherein he states that, the claimant has sustained "severe head injury with facial injuries and had LOC.GCS:E3V4M6. He further states that, the CT brain scanning reveals that SDH in right frontoparietal region with mild midline shift is seen to left side and fracture of bilateral muscle bones". Thus, he assessed the whole body disability to the extent of 33.3%. He has produced certain documents and evidence in his evidence in the shape of IP No.7019 i.e. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 recent clinical examination report, Neuro-Psychological Report, CT Scan Report. There is searching cross- examination by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, but he has withstood the test of cross-examination. 9. PW3- K.T.Girisha, working in Medical Record Office at Navachethana Hospital, Yelahanka, has produced the documents i.e., file maintained by the hospital showing treatment administered on the petitioner. Considering all this evidence, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that, the claimant has sustained disability to the extent of 16%. There is no document produced before the tribunal, showing petitioner's actual income earned by him at the time of the accident. Therefore, it is assessed that, claimant must be earning a notional income Rs.11,000/- per month. The claimant must have suffered lot because of these injuries. With all frustration, inconvenience and discomfort the claimant has to survive. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 10. The medical receipts and prescription were produced by the claimant before the tribunal, which are marked in evidence. However, the documents so produced by the claimant show that he has spent Rs.6,42,085/- towards medical expenses. The said amount is awarded by the tribunal towards medical expenses. In addition to the said medical expenses, the claimant also must have spent some more amount towards other expenses like attendant charges, extra-nutrition, food and conveyance charges etc. The claimant has sustained the head injury as noticed by the doctor in the medical certificate as well as in wound certificate. He must have suffered a lot. With all frustrations, the claimant has to survive. It is argued by the learned counsel for the claimant that, disability is taken is on the lower side. He has taken treatment both as in-patient and out-patient. By this time, the disability must have been reduced to a considerable extent. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the disability to the extent of 15% to the whole - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 body. In my concerned view, whatever the disability arrived at by the tribunal is just and proper. 11. So far as income of the claimant is concerned, the tribunal has assessed claimant's income at Rs.11,000/- per month. It is observed that, there is no evidence placed on the record by the claimant to show that, prior to the accident, he was earning Rs.79,276/- p.m., as stated. In the absence of the same, the tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month. But in view of the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities, as the accident has occurred in the year 2018, the notional income ought to have been assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month. Therefore, the tribunal has committed error in taking the notional income at Rs.11,000/-. The percentage of disability is 15% to the whole body. The claimant was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier as per the judgment in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr reported in AIR 2009 SC 3101, is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 '16'. Thus, loss of future income due to disability is comes to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.12,500/-x 12x 16x 15/100). 12. The tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards the 'pain and suffering'. Looking to the nature of the injuries and also the sufferings by the claimant, Rs.30,000/- appears to be on the lower side. Taking into consideration of all the evidence placed on record by the claimant as well as the treatment taken by him for a period of 26 days as an inpatient, as well as outpatient, the award of compensation towards pain and suffering require interference. Therefore, towards pain and suffering it is enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. 13. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness. As the claimant was just aged 32 years at the time of the accident, with all frustrations and discomfort, the claimant has to survive. So therefore, it also requires interference. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 Hence, towards 'loss of amenities and happiness', he is held entitled to Rs.35,000/-. 14. So far as the 'attendant charges, extra nutrition, food and conveyance charges', the tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- which is very much meager. As the claimant was in the hospital for 26 days as in-patient on 3 occasions in all, and he must have attended the hospital as an out-patient also to take conservative treatment, it has to be enhanced. Therefore, towards attendant charges, extra nutrition, food and conveyance charges, it is to be increased at least Rs.15,000/-. This claimant must have been idled because of his accidental injuries at least for a period of 2 months. There is loss of income during this treatment period. As the income arrived is at Rs.12,500/-, he is entitled for income during laid-up period is at Rs.25,000/-( Rs.12,500/- X 2). 15. So far as medical expenses are concerned, based upon the receipts for having produced by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 claimant before the tribunal, the tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.6,42,085/- . Therefore, the award of compensation as per the bills and receipts do not require any interference. 16. Thus the claimant is held entitled for compensation as mentioned in the table below: Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation Amount in Rs. 01 Loss of future income 3,60,000/- 02 Pain and suffering 45,000/- 03 Loss of amenities and happiness 35,000/- 04 Attendant charges, extra nutrition food and conveyance charges 15,000/- 05 Loss of income during the treatment period 25,000/- 06 Medical expenses 6,42,085/- TOTAL 11,22,085/- Tribunal awarded 10,27,885/- Enhanced amount Rs.94,200/- Thus the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.11,22,085/- as against Rs.10,27,885/- awarded by the tribunal. Thus, there shall be enhancement of compensation of Rs.94,200/- together with interest @ - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation on the enhanced compensation amount. 17. So far as liability is concerned, it is held by the tribunal that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. However, under the law of indemnity, respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation. 18. Accordingly, pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.4179/2018 dated 23.12.2019 passed by the XIV Additional, Small Cause Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-10), is hereby modified to the above extent. (iii) The appellant-claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,22,085/-, as against Rs.10,27,885/- awarded by the tribunal, thereby there would be - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29241 MFA No. 124 of 2021 enhancement of compensation of Rs.94,200/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its deposit. (iv) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of judgment together with interest @6% before the tribunal. (v) The order regarding deposit and release of the amount is concerned, it remains unaltered. (vi) There shall be modified award accordingly. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT: BHK