- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200574 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: RAKESH S/O YESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR (NOW NIL), R/O H.NO.6/160 NEAR CHURCH, BAGDAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR, NOW MENTALLY UNSOUND MIND, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND SMT. BHARATI W/O YESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO.6/160 NEAR CHURCH, BAGDAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. VEERANI & SRI. RAVI B. PATIL &, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SIRAJUDDIN S/O KHIYAMUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O BAGDAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 401. 2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 21 CEENA CHAMBERS, GROUND FLOOR, DALAL STREET, FORT MUMBAI-400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 18.10.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BIDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL THEREBY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.5,54,694/- TO RS.15,00,000/- AS CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.47/2019 passed by the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Bidar, dated 20.07.2021, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 30.06.2018 at about 2:25 PM, the petitioner was a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/L-0495 and the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 rider lost control over the vehicle and skidded as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained head injury and became unconscious. The brother of the petitioner and another with the help of an Ambulance shifted the injured to the Government Hospital Bidar. Thereafter, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. It is contended that he was in patient from 01.07.2018 to 02.07.2018 in the said hospital and it was found that he had suffered the spinal cord injuries. Petitioner contended that he has sustained head injury and has lost the memory and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an adequate compensation. 4. Though, the petitioner contended that, he is confined to the bed and there is severe uncontrolled behaviours coupled with mental retardation on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, there appears to be scanty evidence in this regard. The petitioner contended that he was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 now he has been incapacitated to do any work and therefore he is entitled for adequate compensation. 5. On being served with the notice, the respondent No.2 alone appeared before the tribunal and filed objections, contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant imaginary and untenable. Even though the coverage of the policy was admitted by the respondent No.2, it disputed the severity of the injury as contended by the petitioner. It contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving licence and therefore, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues and the next friend of the petitioner i.e. his mother was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 were marked. One witness who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. The respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 7. After hearing the both sides, the tribunal awarded the compensation under the different heads as below. 1. Loss of future income Rs.4,32,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.2,694/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.30,000/- 5. Food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of future amenity Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.5,54,694/- 8. The tribunal held that there is a disability of 20% as against the disability 40% stated by PW2. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the nature of the disability of the petitioner is severe and the tribunal has failed to assess the same in a proper way. It is contended that the petitioner has lost his memory power and has lost his senses and he is not able to hear and respond to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 words. There is urinary incontinence and his condition is like a child. Therefore, it is contended that there is severe disability and as such the assessment of the tribunal that there is a disability of 20% is unsustainable in law. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the evidence on record falls short of the contentions taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant in his submissions. it is pointed out that the wound certificate shows only minor injuries but the nature of the injuries claimed by the appellant is something which is like a paraplegia. It is pointed out that there is no such linking evidence to show that the petitioner really had sustained such kind of injuries in the accident that occurred involving the two wheeler of the respondent No.1. 12. The fact that there was an accident involving the motorcycle owned by the respondent No.1 insured by the respondent No.2 is not disputed. The coverage of the insurance and the fact that the rider of the motorcycle had - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 a valid driving licence is not disputed by the respondent No.2. To that extent the finding of the tribunal has become final. 13. A careful perusal of the available evidence on record demonstrates that as per wound certificate at Ex.P5, immediately after the accident at about 2:25 PM, the petitioner was taken to the Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences at 3:45 PM. At that time, it was noted that there was a cut lacerated wound over right frontal region measuring 4 x 2 cms and abrasion over the chin ½ x ½ cms. Except these two, there was no other injury. The CT scan of the brain was taken on the same day and it showed no abnormalities. As such, the medical officer noted that the injuries are simple in nature. 14. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner was taken to Gandhi Hospital at Secunderabad. The next record which is available in the form of Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 would show that he was at Gandhi Hospital on the 01.08.2018, 02.08.2018 09.08.2018 and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 13.09.2018. None of these documents show that he was in patient in the said Hospital from 01.07.2018 to 20.07.2018 as claimed by the petitioner. However, there are some medical bills which show purchase of the medicine near Gandhi Hospital Hyderabad during this period. It is also pertinent to note that Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 show that petitioner had complained of road traffic accident and the MRI of the spine had showed spinal cord edema at L2, L3 and L4 and therefore, he was referred to neurosurgery. Weakness in the limbs was also noted by the Medical officer at Gandhi Hospital on 09.08.2018. The hospital record at Ex.P8, again being an OPD registration card, showed weakness in the limbs and some complication regarding bladder. Ex.P9 dated 01.08.2018 is a blank sheet of Gandhi Hospital without any mention on it. Ex.P10 prescribed certain medicine to the petitioner. Therefore, the nature of the treatment taken by the petitioner at Gandhi Hospital is not available on record. It is pertinent to note that PW2, Dr.Rajendra Kothari who - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 deposed about the disability of the petitioner states in his disability certificate at Ex.P.11 as below: “HISTORY OF MET with road traffic accident on 30/6/18 and sustained traumatic brain injury and cervical spine injury. There was H/O LOC followed by drowsiness and weakness in limbs. Patient had difficulty in breathing. He was examined and referred to higher center. He got admitted in Gnadhi Hospital. Secundrabad on 1/7/18 in drowsy and breathless condition. He had L-side hemithorax for which ICD was done. There was deep lacerated would over buttocks. He also ha weakness in both lower limbs and urinary incontinence. Foleys catheterization was done and advised for MRI of spinal cord. His MRI report on 9/8/18 revealed cord compression due to edema at L2, L3 and L4 level. He was treated conservatively and discharged on 20/7/18 with Foleys catheter and advised for physiotherapy for both lower limbs. He was followed up and MRI of spine was done on 9/8/18 that revealed cord compression due to edema at L2, L3 and L4 level. He was diagnosed to be suffering from traumatic paraplegia. He was advised physiotherapy and supportive treatment.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 15. It is pertinent to note that he has tried to link the injuries to the above documents of the Gandhi Hospital and has stated that there is a disability. He ultimately opined that the petitioner had grievous injury to the lumbar spine in the form of edema due to deep injuries sustained in Paraspinal region as found clinically and radiologically. He states that he has Paraparesis in both lower limbs due to which he is unable to stand for long and there is a disability of 40%. 16. It is pertinent to note that the disability stated by the PW2 has been considered by the tribunal and it assessed the functional disability at 20%. It is worth to note that when there is no correlation between the injuries spoken to by PW2 and mentioned by him in the disability certificate and the wound certificate, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a need for enhancement of the disability. As noted supra, the nature of the treatment taken by the petitioner during 01.07.2018 to 20.07.2018 is not - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 available before the Court. Therefore, it is difficult to correlate the simple injuries stated in the wound certificate with the one stated by PW2 which is a Paraparesis. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the disability assessed by the tribunal at 20%. 17. There being no cogent material to prove the income, the tribunal has assessed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/-. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.11,750/- per month for the year 2018. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, they are acceptable. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered at Rs.11,750/-. Therefore, the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.11,750x12x18x20%= Rs.5,07,600/- by adopting a multiplier of 18 for the age of 25 years. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 18. Consequently, the compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period has to be enhanced. Holding that the petitioner is unable to resume his work for a period of six months, the same is calculated at Rs.11,750/- x 6 months = Rs.70,500/-. 19. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner as stated by PW2 and deposed by PW1, it would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. 20. The petitioner is stated to be an inpatient for a period of 20 days but there being no document except the oral testimony, it would be just and proper to award sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of food, nourishment, conveyance and attendants charges. 21. Considering the nature of the injury and the fact that the petitioner was unable to be present himself before the tribunal, it would be just and proper to award sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of loss of future amenities in life. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 22. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,48,100/- under the following heads. Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of future income Rs.5,07,600/- 2. Loss of income during treatment period Rs.70,500/- 3. Future Medical Expenses 4. Pain and suffering Rs.75,000/- 5. Loss of amenities Rs.75,000/- 6. Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.7,48,100/- Less: Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.5,54,694/- Total enhancement Rounded off Rs. Rs.1,93,406/- Rs.1,93,400/- 23. Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,93,400/- with interest. 24. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following; O R D E R I. The appeal is allowed in part. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1532 MFA No. 200574 of 2022 II. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till the date of deposit. III. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding deposit etc., remain unaltered. Office is directed to send back the Trial Court records forthwith. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 CT: AK