Karnataka High Court
Yallappa S/O. Basavanneppa Kabber vs Divya Sridharan S/O. Sridharan on 9 January, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
MFA No. 23962 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23962 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
YALLAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA KABBER,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANUMARAHALLI, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIVYA SRIDHARAN S/O. SRIDHARAN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. DOOR NO.16, KSRTC LAYOUT,
SUBRAMANYAM MAIN ROAD,
UTTARAHALLI, BANGALURU.
2. THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
THE HDFC-ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
I FLOOR, GENEVA HOUSE NO.14,
CUNNIGHYAM ROAD, BANGALURU,
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN REP. BY ITS MANGER.
RUDRAYYA KALMATH ...RESPONDENTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 09-01-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.124/2012 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
HAVERI AND CONSEQUENTLY ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS
PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
MFA No. 23962 of 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed in MVC
No.124/2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and
MACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the material
placed before the Court.
3. The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by
the claimant, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this
case.
4. In the present case, from the medical evidence on
record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following
injuries.
"1. Fracture of spinal cord.
2. Traumatic brain injury."
5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
various heads as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
Sl. Heads. Amount in
No. (Rs.)
1. Towards pain and suffering. 25,000
2. Towards diet, nourishment food and 1,500
attendant charges
3. Towards loss of earning during 1,500
period of treatment
4. Towards medical expenses 55,754
5. Towards loss of amenities 20,000
Total: 1,03,754
6. Considering the nature of injuries sustained,
compensation awarded by Tribunal is on lesser side. Therefore,
the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the
judgment and award.
7. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant,
the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
under the head pain and suffering appears to be on lower side.
The same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
8. Compensation towards medical expenses of
Rs.55,754/- awarded by the Tribunal is as per the medical bills
and records. Hence the same is kept intact.
9. The Tribunal has awarded meager compensation of
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. The same is enhanced
to Rs.30,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
10. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under
the head 'loss of future earnings due to disability' on the
ground that there is contradictory evidence between the
claimant and doctor. The claimant has suffered fracture of
spinal cord and traumatic brain injury. Due to the said fracture
and injury, the nervous system motor functions are affected
and also it affects the earning capacity of the claimant. The
claimant-PW.2 is an agriculturist, which is cited by the Tribunal.
Ex.P59 is the disability certificate and PW.3 is the doctor, who
has issued the disability certificate. The doctor has stated that
since the claimant had suffered fracture of spinal cord, there is
no strength in the right hand movements and is not able to
work after the accident. The claimant had also suffered
impairment, therefore, the claimant is not able to walk and
stand on his legs.
11. Considering the fact that the claimant was an
agriculturist, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not
considering the case properly and appreciating the evidence on
record. Just because, there is some minor contradictory
evidence between the evidence of PW.2-claimant and PW.3-
doctor, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
claimant in that regard. This shows insensitivity on the part of
the Tribunal while considering the case, as if considering the
case beyond reasonable doubt, which is incorrect approach.
12. In the present case, this Court has to consider the
case on all its preponderance of probabilities while appreciating
the evidence on record. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed
a serious error in not considering the case properly and
appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings due to disability.
13. The accident occurred on 10.12.2011. PW.3-doctor
has given evidence and also in Ex.P59-disability certificate it is
stated that the claimant has suffered 40% disability on the
right upper limb and impairment. Therefore, it is just and
proper to take 20% as functional disability to the whole body,
since the claimant has suffered disability as stated above.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled to additional income towards
loss of future earnings due to disability.
14. The claimant was aged 30 years at the time of
accident. Accordingly as per the age group mentioned in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases
680, and as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
New India Assurance Company Vs. Abdul S/o Mehaboob
Tahasildar in MFA No.103807/2016 C/w. MFA
Nos.103835/2016 & 103807/2018 and as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram
vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited and another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, even
in the case of injuries, certain income is to be added towards
loss of future prospects in life.
15. The accident is caused in the year 2011. Therefore,
notional income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.6,000/- per
month is taken into consideration by placing reliance on the
notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Service Authority. The claimant was aged 30 years at the time
of accident. Therefore, appropriate applicable multiplier is 17.
In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% of the income is to be added
towards loss of future prospects in life. Thus, the appellant is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of future income
due to disability' as under:
Rs.6,000 + 40% x 20% x 12 x 17 = Rs.3,42,720/-.
16. The claimant was inpatient in hospital from
12.12.2011 to 21.12.2011. But the Tribunal has awarded a
meager compensation of Rs.1,500/- towards incidental
expenses like diet, nourishment, food and attendant charges.
The same is enhance to Rs.15,000/-.
17. Further, the Tribunal has shown insensitiveness
while awarding loss of earning during period of treatment by
awarding a meager compensation of Rs.1,500/- under the said
head. But the claimant was inpatient for a period of 10 days
from 12.12.2011 to 21.12.2011. The claimant has suffered
fracture of spinal cord and traumatic brain injury and due to the
said fracture and injury, the nervous system motor functions
are affected and also it affects the earning capacity of the
claimant. Therefore, the claimant must have taken treatment
and laid up by confining in the home at least for a period of 3
months. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 3 months) under the head loss of
income during laid up period.
18. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation
under various heads as under:
Sl. Heads. Amount in
No. (Rs.)
1. Towards loss of future income due 3,42,720/-
to disability.
2. Towards loss of pain and suffering. 30,000/-
2. Towards diet, nourishment, food 15,000/-
and attendant charges.
3. Towards loss of earning during 18,000/-
period of treatment
4. Towards medical expenses 55,754/-
5. Towards loss of amenities 30,000/-
Total: 4,91,474/-
19. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.4,91,474/- along with interest at the rate
of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization,
as against Rs.1,03,754/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment.
20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 09.01.2013
passed in MVC No.124/2012 on the file of
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Haveri, stands modified.
iii) The claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.4,91,474/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date
of petition till its realization as against
Rs.1,03,754/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iv) The claimant is not entitled for interest for
the delayed period of 179 days in filing the
appeal.
v) The insurance company shall deposit the
amount within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
vi) Send back the Trial Court records along with
a copy of this judgment.
vii) No order as to costs.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:343
viii) Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
PMP
