Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj vs Srinivasreddy R And Anr on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
MFA No. 200347 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 200361 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200347/2018 (MV-I)
C/W.
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200361/2018 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 200347/2018:
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ S/O SHANKARAPPA PALLAPURE,
AGED ABOUT: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND KIRANA BUSINESS,
R/O. VILLAGE MEHAKAR, TQ. BHALKI,
NOW RESIDING AT HIREMATH COLONY,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRINIVASREDDY R.,
S/O. R. MASCHANDRAREDDY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
AND OWNER OF SWIFT MARUTI
CAR NO.AP-09/BM-2369,
R/O.24-2/5 VIMALADEVI COLONY,
MALKAJIGIRI, SECUNDERABAD,
DIST. HYDERABAD (AP)-500047.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
MFA No. 200347 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 200361 of 2018
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD,
KALALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADV., FOR R2
R1-V/O DTD. 29.08.2018 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN MVC
NO.217/2014, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 200361/2018:
BETWEEN:
JAGANATH S/O SHANKARAPPA PALAPURE,
AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS,
OCC: SERICULTURE INSPECTOR TAC,
BASAVAKALYAN,
R/O VILLAGE MEHAKAR,
TQ. BHALKI,
NOW RESIDING AT HIREMATH COLONY,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRINIVASREDDY R.,
S/O R. MASCHANDRAREDDY,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
MFA No. 200347 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 200361 of 2018
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER OF
SWIFT MARUTI CAR NO.AP-09/BM-2369
R/O. 24-2/5 VIMALADEVI COLONY,
MALKAJIGIRI,
SECUNDRABAD,
DIST. HYDERABAD (AP)-500047.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADV., FOR R2;
R1- V/O DTD. 19.11.2018 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT BASAVAKALYAN, IN MVC
NO.218/2014 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION.
THESE 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)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in both
the appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
2. The appellants in these appeals are respectively the
petitioners in MVC Nos.217/2014 and 218/2014 before the
learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Basavakalyan, (for short
'Tribunal').
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 17.09.2013
the petitioners, namely Shivaraj and Jaganath were traveling
on their newly purchased Hero-Honda motorcycle and Jaganath
was riding the same; they met with an accident when a Swift
Car bearing No.AP-09/BM-2369 came from the opposite
direction in negligent manner and collided against the
motorcycle of the petitioners. As a result, the appellant -
Shivaraj in MFA No.200347/2018 suffered fracture of IT, femur,
right lateral condyle, segmental fracture of right tibia, right foot
crush injury, cut forefoot amputation and shifted to
Government Hospital at Basavakalyan. Later he took treatment
at Kanade Hospital at Omerga and he was inpatient for about
23 days. The rider Jaganath, who is appellant in MFA
No.200361/2018, suffered partial amputation of right midfoot,
cut fracture of all metatarsals, fracture of right R/U
communited fracture of right femur segmental, fracture of
condyles. He was also admitted to the hospital and took
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
treatment for nearly four months. They filed claim petition
before the Tribunal seeking the adequate compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, on issuance of the notice,
respondents appeared through their respective counsels.
5. Respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle contended
that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and un-
imaginary and there was no such negligence on his part, but
the negligence was on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.
If any compensation is to be paid, the same be fastened upon
respondent No.2-Insurance Company as there was a valid
insurance.
6. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company took up
similar contentions and contended and there was no such
insurance by it and the conditions of the policy were also
violated.
7. The Tribunal on the basis of the contentions of the
parties framed appropriate issues, both the petitioners entered
the witness box and deposed as PWs.1 and 2 and the Doctor
who assessed their disability was examined as PW3. Exs.P1 to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
P34 were marked on their behalf. No evidence was led on
behalf of the respondents. After hearing both the sides, the
Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads:
In MVC No.217/2014 - regarding Shivaraj
Sl. Head Award Amount
No.
1 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2 Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
3 Attendance charges Rs.20,000/-
4 Medical Expenses Rs.1,91,000/-
5 Loss of income during Rs.20,000/-
treatment
6 Loss of future earning Rs.90,720/-
Total Rs.3,71,720/-
Rounded of Rs.3,72,000/-
In MVC No.218/2014 - regarding Jaganath
Sl. Head Award Amount
No.
1 Future unhappiness Rs.1,00,000/-
2 Pain and suffering Rs.70,000/-
3 Medical Expenses Rs.2,47,000/-
4 Loss of pay Rs.1,70,000/-
Total Rs.5,87,000/-
Rounded of Rs.5,90,000/-
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA
No.200361/2018 filed by the rider Jaganath submits that
though Jaganath was a Government Employee, he is entitled
for adequate compensation under the heads loss of amenities in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
life, pain and sufferings and loss of pay. It is submitted that
the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation under
these heads.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent-Insurance Company submits that there is no need
for any enhancement of the compensation amount.
10. The appellant - Jaganath though having suffered
the above said injuries and amputation of some of the
metatarsals, the Tribunal holds that he is entitled for the
compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the head of pain and
suffering. Being a Government Servant serving in the
Department of Sericulture, which involves extensive traveling,
the compensation appears to be on lower side. The nature of
the injuries suggests that when there is half of the foot has
been amputated, his movements are painful and he has to
suffer the same for rest of his life. Therefore, instead of sum of
Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, it would be just and
appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head
loss of amenities (future unhappiness).
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
11. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, Ex.P32 shows that the petitioner - Jaganath
was on earned leave for a period of 257 days i.e., 8½ months.
However, the Tribunal in its wisdom held that only five months
of leave would have been sufficient. When there is leave of 8½
months had been granted by the Higher Officers of the
petitioner - Jaganath on account of the medical conditions, the
Tribunal could not have reduced the same while awarding
compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.34,000/- x 8.5 = Rs.2,89,000/- instead of Rs.1,70,000/-
under the head loss of earning during laid up period (loss of
pay).
12. Further, it would be just and appropriate to award a
sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head attendant charges during
laid up period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for modified
compensation as below:
Sl. Head Award by the Award by this
No. Tribunal Court
1 Future unhappiness Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
2 Pain and sufferings Rs.70,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
3 Medical expenses Rs.2,47,000/- Rs.2,47,000/-
4 Loss of pay Rs.1,70,000/- Rs.2,89,000/-
5 Attendant charges -- Rs.20,000/-
TOTAL Rs.5,87,000/- Rs.7,56,000/-
(Rounded of
Rs.5,90,000/-)
13. Insofar as the claimant - Shivaraj (appellant in MFA
No.200347/2018) is concerned, he had suffered various injuries
as narrated by the Tribunal in Para - 12 of its judgment, which
reads as below:
"Fracture of IT, femur, hofa latcondygle,
segmental fracture of right tibia, right foot crush
injury, cut forefoot amputation"
14. The evidence of PW3 - Medical Officer, who
assessed the disability, shows that the petitioner - Shivaraj is
unable to squat, climb the stairs, bend in the right hip, thigh
and ankle etc., and therefore he assessed the disability at 59%
to the whole body. It is pertinent to note that a Medical Officer
can only assess the physical disability, but not the functional
disability. According to the petitioner, he is an Agriculturist by
profession and aged about 60 years, therefore, the disability
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
could not have been reduced by the Tribunal. The above
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be
accepted, since, the functional disability and the physical
disability need not be always be equal. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the functional disability of the petitioner
has to be taken at 20% and since the petitioner is aged about
60 years it would be difficult for aged person to adapt to the
disability suffered by him.
15. The guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority for settlement of the disputes before the Lok
Adalat prescribe the notional income of `7,000/- for the year
2013. In umpteen number of decisions, this Court has held
that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are held to be acceptable
on the ground that they are in general conformity with the
minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act.
Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner is accepted as
`7,000/- per month.
16. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a loss of
future income at `1,51,200/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 20% x 9)
instead of Rs.90,720/- awarded by the Tribunal.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
Consequently, the compensation for the laid up period also
enhanced to Rs.21,000/- against Rs.20,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and sufferings, which is on the lower side,
the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.
18. The compensation under rest of the heads does
not require any interference by this Court, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for the compensation as below:
Sl. Head Award by the Award by this
No. Tribunal Court
1 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/-
2 Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
3 Attendance charges Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
3 Medical Expenses Rs.1,91,000/- Rs.1,91,000/-
4 Loss of income Rs.20,000/- Rs.21,000/-
during treatment
5 Loss of future Rs.90,720/- Rs.1,51,200/-
earning
Total Rs.3,71,720/- Rs.4,43,200/-
Rounded of Rs.3,72,000/-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:52
19. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals deserve
to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The appellant in MFA No.200347/2018 is entitled to
additional compensation of Rs.71,200/- and the appellant in
MFA No.200361/2018 is entitled to additional compensation
Rs./-1,66,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date
of petition till its realization.
(iii) The rest of the terms and conditions regarding
deposit and etc., ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.
(iv) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the additional compensation amount within four weeks
from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
