Karnataka High Court

Sri Hanumanthappa vs M/S Iffco Tokyo General Insurance ... on 6 January, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                          -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:151
                                                    MFA No. 5372 of 2021




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                      DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                       BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5372 OF 2021 (MV-I)

              BETWEEN:

                    SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
                    S/O.LATE SIDDARAMMAPPA
                    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                    R/AT JAVOOR VILLAGE
                    SHIVANI HOBLI
                    TARIKERE TALUK
                    CHIKKAMANGLUR DISTRICT-577 145
                    PRESENTLY R/AT DOOR NO.10E1
                    HMT WATCH FACTORY COLONY
                    BENGALURU
                                                            ...APPELLANT
              (BY SRI H.B.RUDRESH, ADVOCATE)
              AND:
              1.    M/S.IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL
                    INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                    SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR
                    NO.141, 3RD MAIN
Digitally           EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT
signed by B
LAVANYA             KASTURINAGAR
Location:           BENGALURU-560 043
HIGH
COURT OF      2.    SRI PRAKASH K.S.
KARNATAKA           S/O.SHIVAPPA H.N.
                    R/AT 'PREETHAM NILAYA'
                    LIC EXTENSION, GIRINAGARA
                    TARIKERI TALUK
                    CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT
                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
              (BY SRI KRISHNA KISHORE S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
                  SRI G.M.HEMANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                              -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:151
                                       MFA No. 5372 of 2021




     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.07.2021
PASSED IN MVC.NO.2512/2019 BY IX C/C. XIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 29.07.2021

passed in MVC.No.2512/2019 by the Court of IX C/c XIII

ASCJ and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member-MACT,

Bengaluru (for short 'the tribunal'). The appeal is preferred

on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation

awarded by the tribunal.

2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with

consent of learned counsels for both parties, it is taken up

for final disposal.

3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

NC: 2025:KHC:151

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 08.12.2018 at about 7.30 p.m., the claimant had

gone outside to throw the old flowers from the temple and

returning to the temple. At that time, one car bearing

registration No.KA-18-P-1336 came in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which,

the claimant suffered grievous injuries to his both legs,

face, eyes and hands and immediately he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Ajjampura, where he took first aid

treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to J.P.Hospital,

Shivamogga, where he underwent surgery and again

thereafter, he was shifted to Venlock Hospital, Mangaluru

for better treatment.

4.1 It is further stated by the claimant that he was

working as a Priest in Sri Kukududamma Temple,

Ajjampura and was earning a salary of Rs.16,000/- per

month. Due to the grievous injuries suffered by the

claimant, he is unable to do his day-to-day activities as a

Priest and unable to earn his income. It is also stated that

NC: 2025:KHC:151

the claimant spent a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- towards

medical treatment and other charges. Hence, he filed a

claim petition seeking compensation.

4.2 On service of notice, the respondents appeared

and filed their written statement denying the claim of the

claimant including negligence attributed as against the

driver of the offending car. Hence, sought for dismissal of

the claim petition.

4.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

relevant issues for consideration.

4.4 In order to substantiate the issue and to

establish the case, the claimant got examined himself as

PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked documents

from Exs.P1 to P18. On the contrary, the respondents

neither examined any witness nor got marked any

document.

4.5 On the basis of material evidence produced by

the parties, the tribunal awarded the compensation of

NC: 2025:KHC:151

Rs.3,98,022/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to pay the compensation within a

period of one month.

4.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

amount awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is before

this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for appellant-claimant that the judgment and award

passed by the tribunal is contrary to materials placed on

record and the compensation awarded is on the lower side

and the same requires to be enhanced. It is further

contended by learned counsel for claimant that the

tribunal has not taken into consideration the materials

placed on record with regard to income earned by the

claimant, the magnitude of the injuries suffered and pain

and agony, so also, no compensation is awarded towards

loss of income during laid-up period. In fact, learned

counsel further contends that future prospects requires to

be awarded in this case, in view of the magnitude of

NC: 2025:KHC:151

injuries suffered by the claimant. Hence, he seeks to

enhance the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-

Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award

passed by the tribunal, contending that the tribunal has

awarded just and reasonable compensation. He further

contends that no proof of income is placed on record to

award compensation towards loss of income due to

disability. The tribunal, nevertheless, taken the income at

Rs.9,000/- per month and awarded reasonable

compensation, which does not call for interference.

7. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-

claimant and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance

Company and perused the impugned judgment and award,

it is seen that the accident occurred on 08.12.2018 at

7.30 p.m. and there is no dispute with regard to

occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle and injuries

suffered by the claimant due to the accident and the

treatment taken by the claimant in the Hospital as

NC: 2025:KHC:151

mentioned in the claim petition. Therefore, the negligence

is rightly attributed as against the driver of the offending

vehicle.

8. Now coming to the age, avocation, income and

quantum of compensation, it is not in dispute that the

claimant was aged 55 years as on the date of occurrence

of accident. Though it is claimed that he was working as a

Priest in a temple, no document is produced to show his

income. The notional income chart of the Legal Services

Authority prescribes Rs.12,500/- per month for the

accident of the year 2018. The same is taken as the

income of the claimant in the present case. The tribunal

applied the multiplier at '11', which does not call for

interference and the same is retained.

9. The Doctor, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at

Victoria Hospital, has been examined as PW.2 and he was

opined the permanent physical disability to an extent of

54% to the right lower limb due to malunion and 27% to

the whole body disability. However, the tribunal not

NC: 2025:KHC:151

accepting the version of the Doctor, taken the disability at

9% and awarded compensation of Rs.1,06,920/- towards

loss future income due to disability.

10. It is to be seen that though the claimant was

working as a Priest in the temple and due to lack of any

material documents to substantiate the same, the income

of Rs.12,500/- is taken as per notional income chart and

the multiplier at '11'. PW.2-Doctor has assessed the

disability at 54% to the right lower limb. However, in my

opinion, considering the magnitude of injuries and looking

at exhibits produced by the claimant, the disability of 20%

is assessed for awarding compensation towards loss of

future income. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled

to Rs.3,30,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 12 x 11 x 20%) under

this head as against Rs.1,06,920/- awarded by the

tribunal.

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain

and suffering. However, looking into the exhibits produced

and the magnitude of the injuries suffered by the claimant,

NC: 2025:KHC:151

for no fault of his, this Court deems it appropriate to

award Rs.60,000/- under this head.

12. The tribunal awarded Rs.2,63,602/- towards

medical expenses. However, the total medical bills

produced by the claimant is Rs.5,30,000/-. The tribunal

has not agreed with the medical bills with regard to

ambulance receipts produced by the claimant amounting

to Rs.70,000/-. I do not find any good ground for the

tribunal to have refused to accept those bills. Considering

the fact that the claimant has met with a terrible injury

and he was admitted to the Hospital multiple times and he

was unable to travel either in two wheeler or four wheeler

without being sedated, this Court is of the opinion that the

bills so submitted to an extent of Rs.70,000/-, requires to

be taken on the face value and accepted. The same will

have to be accepted as the copies of the original bills are

furnished and merely because there is no authentic GST

number, it cannot be denied. Considering the fact that the

Motor Vehicles Act is a Welfare Legislation Scheme, a sum

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:151

of Rs.5,30,000/- requires to be awarded towards medical

expenses as against Rs.2,63,602/- awarded by the

tribunal.

13. With regard to attendant, food, nourishment,

transportation and miscellaneous expenditure, it is seen

from the medical records that the clamant was admitted to

the Hospital as an inpatient for ten (10) months i.e. for

300 days and Rs.500/- is taken as per day charges.

Therefore, Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.500/- x 300) is awarded

under this head.

14. The tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards

loss of amenities. However, this Court deems it

appropriate to award additional amount of Rs.35,000/-

under this head. In all, the claimant would be entitled to

Rs.50,000/- under this head.

15. The tribunal has failed to award compensation

towards loss of income during laid up period. However, the

claimant was inpatient for ten (10) months and he would

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:151

require atleast six (06) months period to recuperate and

get back to his normal day to day activities, therefore, in

all, 16 months is taken to calculate the compensation

under this head. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled

to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.12,500/- x 16) towards loss of

income during laid up period.

16. During the pendency of this appeal, learned

counsel for appellant has filed an application in

IA.No.1/2022 along with certain additional medical bills

amounting to Rs.4,218/- and hospital bills amounting to

Rs.27,495/-, which are incurred post judgment and award

rendered by the tribunal for the injuries sustained in the

accident. Considering the magnitude of the injuries

suffered by the claimant, this Court deems it appropriate

to allow the application in IA.No.1/2022 and accept the

medical and hospital bills. Accordingly, it is allowed. A sum

of Rs.31,713/- (Rs.4,218/- + Rs.27,495/-) is awarded

towards additional medical expenses incurred by the

claimant for treatment of injuries suffered in the accident.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:151

17. In view of the above, the claimant would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,51,713/- as

against Rs.3,98,022/- as mentioned in the table below:

                Heads                     Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning capacity              3,30,000-00
Pain and suffering                             60,000-00
Medical expenses                             5,30,000-00
Attendant,     food,    nourishment,         1,50,000-00
transportation and miscellaneous
expenditure
Loss of amenities                                  50,000-00
Loss of income during laid up period             2,00,000-00
Additional medical expenses                        31,713-00
                TOTAL                          13,51,713-00

18. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 29.07.2021

passed in MVC.No.2512/2019 by the Court of

IX C/c XIII ASCJ and ACMM, Court of Small

Causes, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;