Karnataka High Court
Smt. Vandana W/O Daadasaheb Bhosale vs Sri. Shankarappa S/O Shidagondappa ... on 24 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
MFA No. 200425 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200425 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VANDANA W/O DADASAHEB BHOSALE,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O TIKOTA, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHANKARAPPA
S/O SHIDAGONDAPPA KANDANODIA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O GOUDAR ONI, YADAWAD,
Digitally signed
by TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM-590 005.
LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KARNATAKA
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 09.07.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
MFA No. 200425 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII, VIJAYPUR IN
MVC NO.605/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. By the consent of learned counsel appearing for
both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal,
though it is slated for Admission.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment
and award dated 17.10.2018 passed in MVC No.605/2016
by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
MACT-VII, Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal' for short).
4. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,100/- as compensation and
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioner
is before this Court, seeking enhancement of
compensation.
5. The factual matrix of the case is that, on
23.02.2016 when the petitioner was riding as a pillion on
the motorcycle bearing No.JH.01/BE.0675 ridden by her
husband, she met with an accident when a truck bearing
No.KA-49/3670 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by
respondent No.2 collided with motorcycle. In the said
accident, she sustained fracture of the clavicle on the right
side and few other injuries, whereas her husband, who
was the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to injuries in
the accident. The petitioner was admitted to Dr.Karnalkar
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
Orthopedic Hospital, Sangli and she was inpatient on three
occasions. Initially, the petitioner was an inpatient from
23.02.2016 to 24.02.2016 and then from 05.03.2016 to
10.03.2016 and thereafter again from 31.12.2016 to
11.01.2017.
6. The fact that there was an accident and the
petitioner had sustained injuries in the said accident is not
in dispute before this Court. The coverage of the insurance
for the offending vehicle by respondent No.2 is also not in
dispute. It is only the quantum of compensation, which is
urged before this Court in appeal. Therefore, it is not
necessary for this Court to look into those aspects of the
matter, which have attained finality.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that despite there being sufficient evidence
on record, the Tribunal has not awarded the entire medical
expenses and it has failed to notice the discharge
summaries at Exs.P11 and P12. It is contended that the
medical bills in respect of the inpatient treatment of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
petitioner on the second occasion are not properly
appreciated by the Tribunal, despite there being the
testimony of the treated doctor i.e., PW.2. Therefore, he
contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is on the lower side and the assessment of the disability as
well as the notional income of the appellant needs
reassessment by this Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
defends the impugned judgment saying that the Tribunal
has awarded adequate compensation and therefore, there
is no need for indulgence by this Court.
9. On a careful perusal of the records, it is found
that though the treated doctor is examined as PW.2,
nothing is elicited in the examination-in-chief or in the
cross-examination about the bills/receipts issued by him,
which are part of Ex.P10. When the author of the
document was available before the Court, it appears that
the case was not properly conducted before the Tribunal.
However, the records reveal that the discharge summaries
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
at Exs.P11 and P12, coupled with the case sheet of the
hospital, which is submitted to the Tribunal would show
that she was inpatient on the above mentioned dates. She
had also underwent surgeries. Therefore, the testimony of
PW.2 cannot be brushed aside to say that his evidence is
inadmissible. Moreover, apart from the testimony of PW.2,
the hospital records and the discharge summaries as well
as the X-ray reports etc., would show that the petitioner
had sustained fracture of the right clavicle and it had not
united and therefore, there was need for second and third
admission to the hospital. Under these circumstances, the
Tribunal deducting certain medical bills, while assessing
the medical expenses appears to be incorrect. However,
this Court notices that some of the hospital bills do not
bear the place where the hospital is situated and it gives
an impression that the bills are not properly issued by the
hospital.
10. However, the fact that the petitioner had
sustained the injuries and had suffered the disability of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
15% as stated by PW.2 cannot be brushed aside in limine.
The Tribunal considered the disability at 2% and calculated
the compensation. It is relevant to note that the two
further admissions of the petitioner to the hospital on
account of the disability and the x-rays showing the
treatment by ORIF plate and screws, definitely has
resulted in functional disability.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
petitioner having stated that she was a coolie, the
disability is considered at 5%.
12. The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a
notional income of Rs.8,750/- per month for the year
2016. 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.8,750/-. Therefore, the loss of future income on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
account of the functional disability is calculated as
Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 5% x 14 = Rs.73,500/- by adopting a
multiplier of 14 for the age of 45 years.
13. Similarly, the compensation under the head of
loss of income during the laid up period is calculated at
Rs.8,750/- x 2 months = Rs.17,500/-.
14. After reassessment of the medical bills, the
petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,57,400/- in addition
to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which is at
Rs.1,15,300/-.
15. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered
and its non-union for a longer period, the compensation
under the head of loss of amenities in life is enhanced to
Rs.30,000/-.
16. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the remaining heads i.e., pain and suffering, food
and nourishment, attended charges and conveyance
charges being adequate, do not require any enhancement.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
17. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the
modified compensation under different heads as below:-
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded by this
Court
1. Loss of future income Rs. 73,500/-
2. Towards medical bills Rs.1,57,400/-
3. Loss of amenities in life Rs. 30,000/-
4. Loss of income during laid Rs. 17,500/-
up period
5. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
6. Food and nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
7. Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/-
8. Conveyance charges Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.3,48,400/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.2,22,100
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.1,26,300/-
Thus, the appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,26,300/- with interest.
18. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in
part. Hence, the following;
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1232
II. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,26,300/-
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.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG/KJJ
