Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddalinga Swamy vs The Managing Director on 3 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
MFA No. 1418 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1418 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI SIDDALINGA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,
S/O ANANDAPPA,
R/AT 111, DASARAHALLI VILLAGE,
TALAKU HOBLI, OBALAPURA POST,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
(PETITIONER SUSTAINED SEVER HEAD INJURY HENCE
REPRESENTED BY HIS
FATHER SRI ANANDAPPA AS GUARDIAN).
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NR RANGE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, DOUBLE ROAD,
Digitally
SHANTHI NAGAR,
signed by
NIRMALA BANGALORE.
DEVI
RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI. M ASHOK KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1501/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, & XXXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
MFA No. 1418 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 challenging the
judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 passed in
MVC.No.1501/2015 by the IX Additional Small Causes and
Additional MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7)2, seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated
15.07.2016 has partly allowed the claim petition and has
awarded a total compensation of `11,16,278/- together with
interest at 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, the present appeal
is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
4. The findings of the Tribunal on negligence and
liability are not under challenge and have attained finality.
Hereinafter referred as to 'Act'
Hereinafter referred as to 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
HC-KAR
Hence, the only aspect that is required to be considered in the
present appeal is with regard to the adequacy of the quantum
of compensation awarded.
5. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri NR Range
Gowda appearing for the appellant - claimant and learned
counsel Sri M Ashok Kumar appearing for the respondent -
insurer.
6. It is forthcoming that the claimant was aged 22
years as on date of the accident i.e., on 12.12.2014. The
Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of '18'.
7. It is averred that the claimant was an employee in a
private company and that he was earning `10,000/- per month.
However, the father of the claimant was examined as PW.1 who
has stated in his testimony that the claimant was earning
`7,000/- per month and has admitted the same in his cross-
examination also. Hence, the Tribunal has assessed the income
at `7,000 per month which is just and proper.
8. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate (Ex.P6)
and other medical evidence on record that the claimant has
sustained head injuries with respiratory failure, fracture of the
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
HC-KAR
left occipital bone and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) in
frontal area. The claimant was treated as an inpatient on
various dates for a total period of sixteen days. It is evident
from the testimony of the doctor (PW2), as well as the
permanent disability certificate (Ex.P17) and the
neuropsychological assessment (Ex.P18), that the doctor has
assessed the disability of the claimant at 50%. However, it is
forthcoming from the cross-examination of PW.2 that he was
not the doctor who treated the claimant. The PW.2 has further
admitted that he assessed the disability of the claimant after
one year and one month of the accident and that rehabilitation
course was required to be taken which improves the physical
and mental condition. Ex.P.18 has been conducted by another
doctor. PW.2 has not conducted any tests to assess the
neurological disability of the claimant. Considering the said
aspects, the Tribunal has re-assessed the disability at 50%
which is just and proper.
9. However, having regard to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SIDRAM V/S UNITED
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
HC-KAR
INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD3, since the disability is
assessed as 50%, it is just and proper that the future prospects
be considered while assessing the compensation of loss of
disability / future earning capacity.
10. Having regard to the aforementioned, the
compensation is re-assessed as follows:
i. Having regard to nature of injuries sustained, the
compensation towards pain and suffering is re-assessed as
`60,000/- as against `50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
ii. Having regard to nature of injuries sustained and
the resultant disability, the compensation towards loss of
amenities is re-assessed as `40,000/- as against `30,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
iii. The compensation towards loss of marriage
prospects, loss of income during laid up period and future
medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal are just in proper.
"(2023)3 SCC 439"
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
HC-KAR
iv. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `1,97,278/-
towards medical expenses which is as per the actual bills which
is just and proper and rounded off as `2,00,000/-.
v. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `5,000/-
towards conveyance, `5,000/- towards attendant charges and
`5,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet charges. Having
regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of
treatment it is just and proper, that the compensation on the
said heads be re-assessed as `25,000/-.
vi. The loss of future earning capacity / disability is re-
assessed as (7000 + 40% X 12 X 18 X 50%)=`10,58,400/- as
against `7,56,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Taking judicial notice of the rate of interest awarded
towards fixed deposits, interest on the enhanced compensation
is awarded as 7% pa as against 8% awarded by the Tribunal.
12. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation
re-assessed is as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
HC-KAR
Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Amount awarded
Awarded by the by this Court (`)
Tribunal (`)
1 Loss of future earning 756200.00 1058400.00
capacity
2 Pain and suffering 50000.00 60000.00
3 Loss of amenities 30000.00 40000.00
4 Loss of marriage 20000.00 20000.00
prospects
5 Loss of income during 28000.00 28000.00
laid up period
6 Actual medical expenses 197278.00 200000.00
7 Future medical expenses 20000.00 20000.00
8 Food, nourishment, diet, 15000.00 25000.00
conveyance and
attendant charges
Total 1116478.00 1451400.00
(Wrongly calculated by (1116278.00)
the Tribunal)
13. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to a enhanced
compensation of (`14,51,400/- - `11,16,478/-)= `3,34,922/-.
14. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
NC: 2025:KHC:24010
HC-KAR
ii) The judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 passed
in MVC.No.1501/2015 by the IX Additional Small
Causes and Additional MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7),
is hereby modified to the extent stated herein. In
all other respects, the judgment and award of the
Tribunal remains unaltered;
iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled to an
enhanced compensation of `3,34,922/- together
with interest at 7% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal;
iv) Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said
compensation together with accrued interest within
a period of six weeks;
v) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced
compensation together with interest accrued
thereupon be disbursed to the claimant;
vi) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly;
vii) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PNV
