- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5734 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SHANKAR @ SHANKARANANDA H, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT CHALLAKERE TALUK, DODDACHELLUR, CHITRADURGA - 577 538. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. Y. DODDAIH S/O. YANJERAPPA MAJOR BY AGE, R/AT NO.192, SANIKERE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 522. 2. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.135/5, 2ND FLOOR 15TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5881/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-14), 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/petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 15.02.2020 in MVC No.5881/2017 passed by the Member M.A.C.T, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has preferred this appeal. 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:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 3. The brief and relevant facts leading upto this appeal are as follows: That the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of he sustaining injuries in a road traffic accident, that took place on 07.04.2017 at 03.15 a.m., when himself and another were proceeding in a Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-5880, the same was driven by its driver by name Sanjay Kumar on Magadi Main Road in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, without observing the traffic rules and regulations. When the said vehicle came near Marenahalli, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru City, the driver of the said lorry applied sudden brake, because of this, the said lorry toppled down while the petitioner and other inmates of the said lorry sustained grevious injuries. It is stated that, immediately the petitioner was shifted to Ashraya Medinova Private Limited, Magadi Main Road Hospital, Srigandadakaval, Bengaluru. There he took - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 treatment as inpatient from 07.04.2017 & 08.04.2017. He was discharged with an advice to have a follow up treatment. 4. It is stated that towards 'medical expenses' he has spent Rs.30,000/- including conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc. According to him, prior to the accident, he was aged 19 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. from his profession as a Cutting Operator. It is stated that, these injuries have put him to mental shock, pain and sufferings and untold hardship. Both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. With regard to the said accident, a crime is registered against the driver of the said Ashok Leyland Lorry for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. Hence, it is prayed by the petitioner to award the compensation as paid for. 5. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents appeared, but respondent No.2 only contested the petition - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 by filing a written statement. It is specifically contended by respondent No.2 that, a specific proof of allegations with regard to the accident, injuries suffered by the petitioner, medical expenses spent by him, his profession etc., present petition is not at all maintainable as against respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify his life. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned Tribunal framed relevant three issues. 7. To prove the claim of the petitioner, he himself entered the witness box as PW1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. So also examined one Dr.Sunil, a Medical Record Incharge of Ashraya Hospital, Bengaluru as PW2 and through him Ex.P12 to Ex.P16 were marked. He also examined by one Dr. Vireesha U.Mathad, a consultant Neurosurgeon at BGS Global Hospital, Uttarahalli Road, Bengaluru as PW3 and got marked 2 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 documents as Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 and closed his evidence. Respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and documents were marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The learned Tribunal, on hearing the arguments and assessment of the evidence, held that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-5800, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. 8. Further, the Tribunal has given the finding that, in the said accident the petitioner had sustained disability at the rate of 12% and awarded the compensation, under the following heads: 1 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 2 Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Rs.2,000/- 3 Medical expenses Rs.15,000/- 4 Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs.24,000/- 5 Loss of Future earnings Rs.2,07,360/- 6 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- 7 Future Medical expenses Rs.--------- TOTAL Rs.3,03,360/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 9. Being dissatisfied with the said award passed by the tribunal, now the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. There is no appeal filed by the respondent, being aggrieved by the findings on issue No.1. Therefore, whatever the findings given by the tribunal on issue No.1 has attained finality, i.e., the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-5880, by its driver. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, when the accident took place, petitioner was aged 19 years and was working as a Cutting Operator and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. He would further submit that, because of the accidental injuries, he has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 50% as stated by the PW3-doctor. Further, he submits that, the petitioner has spent substantial money towards medical expenses. He submits that, whatever the income being arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- p.m., is on lower side. He submits - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 that, in view of the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities, as the accident has taken place in the year 2017, in the absence of any proof regarding the income, the notional income has to be taken. Therefore, he submits that, the notional income may be taken at Rs.11,000/- p.m. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. As per the evidence placed on the record by the petitioner, he has sustained multiple injuries, such as, (i) laceration on scalp of abour; (ii) blunt injury on the head. Ex-P3 is produced by the petitioner to show that, he has sustained the aforesaid injuries and it is opined that the injuries are simple in nature. But, the medical records also reveal that, he had sustained C6 Burst fracture with C7 wedge fracture with cervical spinal cord contusion. Thus, the learned Tribunal has opined that, the petitioner has suffered these injuries because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though PW3-doctor has opined - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 that, the petitioner has sustained the permanent disability to the extent of 50%, the Tribunal has taken it as 12% to the whole body. He submits that, it is on the lower side. Further, he submits that, the medical records so produced by the petitioner in the shape of Ex.P3, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18, that, the petitioner has sustained sufficient permanent neurological disability. 12. In view of the evidence placed on record through PW1 and PW3, the petitioner as well as the doctor who has given the disability certificate and treated him, and also considering the age of the petitioner as 22 years at the time of accident and also the nature of the treatment being taken by him, if the disability is assessed to 20% to the whole body being a neurological disability, it would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the findings of the tribunal that, the disability is at 12% is to be set aside and it is held that, the petitioner has sustained permanent neurological disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 13. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities, when there is no proof of income regarding his income, the notional income has to be taken into consideration. As per the guidelines, Rs.11,000/- notional income to be taken for the year 2017 as the accident has taken place in the year 2017. It is to be multiplied by 12 to calculate annually. As the petitioner was aged 22 years at the time of accident, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, the proper multiplier that is applicable is '18', as rightly held by the Tribunal. Therefore, the 'loss of future income due to disability' would be Rs.4,75,200/- (Rs.11,000/-x12 monthsx18x20/100). 14. So far as 'pain and suffering', the tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards the same and in view of the injury being sustained by him, whatever the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering requires no - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 interference. It is held that, Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.30,000/- towards the same. 15. So far as 'food, nourishment, convenience and attendant charges' is concerned, tribunal has awarded just Rs.2,000/-, it appears to be very meager. If it is increased to Rs.10,000/-, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for compensation towards 'food, nourishment, convenience and attendant charges' at Rs.10,000/-. 16. According to the petitioner, he has spent substantial money towards medical expenses. Based upon the actual bills Rs.15,000/- is awarded by the tribunal which requires no interference. These injuries must have idled the petitioner at least for a period of 3 months and during this period; he must have lost his income. As monthly income of the petitioner is assessed at Rs.11,000/-, then, towards 'loss of income during treatment period' would be Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000/-X - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 3). With all frustrations, inconvenience and discomfort, the petitioner has to survive. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of amenities', which requires no interference. 17. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for the compensation as under: 1 Loss of income due to disability Rs.4,75,200/- 2 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- 3 Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- 4 Medical expenses Rs.15,000/- 5 Loss of income during the period of treatment Rs.33,000/- 6 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- TOTAL Rs.5,88,200/- 18. So far as liability is concerned, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-16-C-5880, owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 not disputed the validity of the policy as on the date of accident. Primarily, the liability is on the owner of the vehicle. But, however, under the law of indemnity, respondent No.2 to indemnify the compensation. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of this judgment before the Tribunal, together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till its realisation. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC NO. 5881/2017 dated 15.02.2020 passed by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH-14) & MACT Member at Bengaluru City is hereby modified. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 (iii) Appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,88,200/- as against Rs.3,03,360/-awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a., on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization, thereby there would be enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,84,840/-. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of this judgment before the tribunal. (v) With regard to the deposit and release of the amount, the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. (vi) There shall be modified award accordingly. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29538 MFA No. 5734 of 2021 (vii) Send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: BHK