Karnataka High Court

Bommaram vs Akbar Ali on 30 July, 2025

                                                      -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB
                                                            MFA No. 1677 of 2017


                       HC-KAR



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                 DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                                  PRESENT
                                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                                      AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 1677 OF 2017 (MV-I)


                       BETWEEN:

                             BOMMARAM
                             AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
                             S/O MOHAN RAM
                             REP.BY HIS GUARDIAN
                             WIFE DHAPU DEVI
                             R/O BER BHABIYON WALA
                             MALPURIYA, JAITHARAN
                             RAJASTHAN - 303 303.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT

                       (BY SRI SANDESH SHETTY T, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by    AND:
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court
of Karnataka           1.    AKBAR ALI
                             S/O K ABDUL SAHEB
                             R/O H.No.18-110
                             HOODE POST
                             PADUTHONSE VILLAGE
                             KEMMANNU
                             UDUPI TALUK - 576 115.

                       2.    THE NEW INDIA
                             ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                             BRANCH, KUNDAPURA
                             2ND FLOOR,
                             SRI RAM ARCADE
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB
                                       MFA No. 1677 of 2017


HC-KAR



    OPP. HEAD POST OFFICE
    UDUPI - 576 101.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2
        R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.11.2016
PASSED IN MVC No.688/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,

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

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the

judgment and award passed in MVC No.688/2015 by the

Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Kundapura,

Udupi whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,79,770/- with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till

realization.

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition

before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the claimant's case before the

Tribunal are as under:

The claimant filed the claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal

seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by

him in a road traffic accident that took place on

04.02.2015 at about 12.00 p.m., when he was proceeding

on his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-20-S-230

from Kundapura side towards Udupi and when the motor

cycle reached near Saligrama Bus stand, Chitrapady

Village, on NH-66, Udupi, at that time, the driver of the

Mahindra Pickup vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-20-D-0883

came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the said impact, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries on his head.

Immediately, he was shifted to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi for

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

treatment, where he lodged complaint, which led to

registration of FIR and investigation. Thus, the claimant

had filed claim petition before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record as

per Exs.P1 to P.14 and considering the oral evidence of

PW.1 to PW.3, awarded compensation of Rs.12,79,770/-

with interest at rate of 6% p.a.

5. Learned counsel Sri. Sandesh Shetty T., for the

appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal has

committed error in taking the notional income of the

claimant at Rs.9,000/- though there is sufficient evidence,

which clearly discloses that claimant was doing granite

fixing work. Further, the Tribunal has considered only 40%

of disability which is contrary to the evidence of PW.2 -

Doctor, who has assessed the disability of 61% to the

whole body. Further, the Tribunal has not granted 40%

future prospects to the income of the claimant and the

Tribunal has granted meager compensation towards loss of

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

amenities, future medical expenses and has not granted

compensation towards transportation, conveyance and

attendant charges. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

6. Learned counsel Sri. K. Poornabodha Rao, for

respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the

Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record has rightly granted fair and just

compensation to the claimant. Hence, no interference of

this Court is called for in that regard. Thus, prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

7. There is no dispute regarding the injuries

sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident

occurred on 04-02-2015 when the claimant was

proceeding on the road he met with an accident, thus he

sustained injuries on his head and right hand. Hence, the

only point that arises for our consideration in the appeal

is:

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate or does it call for any interference?"

8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for

both the parties and perusing the judgment and award of

the Tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on

the lower side and hence, it is required to be enhanced.

9. As per Ex.P3- wound Certificate, the claimant has

sustained the following injuries:

(i) Reddish abrasion of 3 cm x 3 cm on the right side of forehead with CT scan showing:

a) Contusion of left fronto temporal contusion

b) Difuse cebral edema

c) Right hemiparesis

(ii) Reddish abrasion of 6 cm x 4 cm on the right cheek.

(iii) Reddish abrasion of 3 cm x 2 cm on the chin.

(iv) Reddish contusion of 8 cm x 6 cm on the right shoulder with underlying fracture of clavicle (X ray no.9635)

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

(v) Laceration of 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on the inner aspect of right elbow.

(vi) Reddish abrasion of 4 cm x 3 cm on the right knee.

(vii) Reddish abrasion of 5 cm x 3 cm on the right foot.

10. In order to establish this aspect, the claimant

examined himself on oath as PW.1 and in support of his

oral evidence, he examined the treated Doctor as PW.2. As

per the opinion of the Doctor, the claimant suffered in all

nine injuries and the Doctor has assessed the disability at

61%. But the Tribunal considered functional disability at

40%, which is fair and reasonable and no interference is

called for in that regard, as Ex-P5 disability certificate

discloses that the Doctor has assessed the disability in

respect of upper limb and disability is not assessed in

respect of head injury. But PW.2 Dr Ullas Shetty in his

evidence has stated that due to head injury, the claimant

suffered loss of muscular power and strength in his right

hand and there is no sensation in the right hand. Thus he

has suffered problem in nerves, which affected the upper

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

limb of the claimant. PW-2 Doctor is not an Orthopedic

Surgeon. One Dr. Raja has assessed the physical disability

and he has not been examined. Therefore, considering all

these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly

assessed permanent physical disability of the claimant at

40%, which is reasonable one.

11. Insofar as the income of the claimant is

concerned, the Tribunal has considered the income of the

claimant at Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per the chart issued by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and High Court

Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru for the accident

occurred in the year 2015.

12. Further, the Tribunal has not considered future

prospects. Future prospectus, which represent potential

future income, which is inherently uncertain and not a loss

incurred at the time of accident or claim. Since future

prospectus relate to potential future income, there is no

loss until that future income is actually earned and not

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

received due to accident. The age of the claimant at the

time of the accident was 27 years. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has provided guidelines involving percentage-based

calculations related to age. Future prospectus is not

automatically granted and is subject to legal

interpretations and precedent.

13. We have considered various factors including the

nature of the work undertaken by the claimant, his

potential for career advancement and economic conditions

at the time of the accident. Specific percentage and

multiplier used also are considered. Prospectus implies

expectation of an opportunity, event, condition or

development of definite interest or concern. In the instant

case, since the functional disability of the claimant is

assessed at 40% and there is every possibility that the

injury sustained by the claimant may be cured in the due

course of time, the claimant is not entitled for future

prospectus.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

14. The Tribunal has granted compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,37,370/-

towards medical expenses, Rs.1,08,000/- towards loss of

earning during laid up period, Rs.7,34,400/- towards loss

of future earning capacity, which are fair and reasonable.

Hence, no interference is called for in that regard.

15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards

loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical

expenses which is on lower side. Hence, additional sum

of Rs.50,000/- each is granted in respect of loss of

amenities and future medical expenses.

16. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation in

respect of conveyance, nourishment and attendant

charges. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under

this head.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB

HC-KAR

17. Thus, the claimant is entitled to re-assessed

compensation as under:

                 HEADS                                   Rs.
Pain and sufferings                                   1,00,000.00
Medical expenses                                      2,37,370.00
Loss of earning during laid up period                 1,08,000.00
Loss of future earning capacity                       7,34,400.00
Loss of amenities                                     1,00,000.00
Future Medical expenses                               1,00,000.00
Conveyance, nourishment and
                                                         20,000.00
attendant charges
                 TOTAL                               13,99,770.00

Less: Compensation awarded by the                    12,79,770.00
Tribunal
    ENHANCED COMPENSATION                            1,20,000.00


     18.   Accordingly,   the       point    for   consideration   is

answered partly in the affirmative. In the result, we pass

the following: