Karnataka High Court
Rajesh Ira Gowda vs Chandrappa N on 4 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
MFA No. 100330 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 100331 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100330 OF 2023 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100331 OF 2023(MV-I)
IN M.F.A. NO.100330 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
RAJESH IRA GOWDA S/O IRA GOWDA,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O BADAGI VILLAGE, BANDAL, SIRASI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581315.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K., AND
SMT. V. VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. CHANDRAPPA N. S/O. NINGAPPA,
R/O. KURVINAKATTE CIRCLE,
Digitally signed by KABEERANANDA NAGAR (AGALERI),
V N BADIGER
CHITRADURGA-577501.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (OWNER OF TOYOTA CAR NO.KA-16-C-7216).
KARNATAKA
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE CHOLAMANDALAM,
MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, V.A.KALBURGI SQUARE,
DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
TRAFFIC ISLAND, HUBLI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1)OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
MFA No. 100330 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 100331 of 2023
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.511/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.100331 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
GAYATRI RAJESH GOWDA D/O. RAJESH IRA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/O. BADAGI VILLAGE, BANDAL, SIRSI TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581315.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K., AND
SMT. V. VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. CHANDRAPPA N S/O. NINGAPPA,
R/O KURUVINAKATTE CIRCLE,
KABEERANANDA NAGAR (AGALERI)
CHITRADURGA-577501.
(OWNER OF TOYOTA CAR NO.KA-16-C-7216)
2. THR BRANCH MANAGER,
THE CHOLAMANDALAM,
MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR,
V.A.KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, TRAFFIC ISLAND, HUBLI TALUK,
DHARWAD DISTRICT-580029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1)OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.516/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
MFA No. 100330 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 100331 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
Since these appeals are listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up
for final disposal.
2. The claimants-injured are before this Court praying
for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and award
dated 27.01.2020 passed in MVC Nos.511/2018 and 516/2018
on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge & Member, Addl. MACT,
Sirsi1.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of these
appeals are that, on 14.05.2018, both the claimants-injured
were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31-
H-1513 towards Hanumanti village from Badagi village. When
they reached Bandal village, Kumta-Sirsi road, at that time,
one Toyota Car bearing registration No.KA-16-C-7216 came in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle,
'Tribunal' for short
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
causing grievous injuries to both the claimants. It is stated
that the claimant in MVC No.511/2018 was aged about 40
years at the time of accident and was doing coolie work,
earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It is further stated that the
claimant in MVC No.516/2018 was aged about 15 years at the
time of the accident and she was studying in 10th Standard.
4. The claimants examined four witnesses as PW1 to
PW4, apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to P33. The
respondents did not examine any witness nor marked any
documents. The Tribunal considering the material on record
awarded total compensation of Rs.6,80,945/- in MVC
No.511/2018 and Rs.4,37,340/- in MVC No.516/2018 with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petitions
till realization.
5. Heard the learned counsel Smt. V. Vidya Iyer for
the appellants/injured, learned counsel Sri. Nagaraj C Kolloori
for the respondent/insurance company and perused the appeal
papers including original records.
6. Learned counsel Smt. Vidya Iyer for the
appellants/injured would submit that the notional income of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
injured-Rajesh Gowda assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/-
per month is on the lower side, inasmuch as he was doing
coolie work and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. She further
submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under
other heads is on the lower side and seeks to enhance the
same.
7. Learned counsel Smt. Vidya Iyer further submits
that the income of the minor injured-Gayatri assessed by the
Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- is on the lower side, which requires to be
enhanced appropriately taking note of the age of the injured
i.e. 15 years at the time of the accident. She further submits
that disability assessed by the Tribunal at 19% is on lower side,
since PW3-doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered
functional disability to an extent of 57%. It is further
submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on
the other heads is also on the lower side and seeks to enhance
the same. It is the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant that due to the accidental injuries, she has lost
marriage prospects in her life, therefore, she prays for
awarding compensation on the head of loss of marriage
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
prospects. Thus, she prays for allowing the appeals filed by the
appellants/injured.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Nagaraj C Kolloori
for the respondent/Insurance company supporting the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal contends that
the Tribunal considering oral and documentary evidence on
record awarded just and reasonable compensation under
various heads in respect of both the claimants, which does not
call for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prays
for dismissal of the appeals.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers including original records,
the only point that falls for consideration in these appeals is,
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
claimants-injured in both appeals would be entitled for
enhanced compensation?
Answer to the above point would be in the 'affirmative' for
the following reasons:
10. The factum of the accident resulting in injuries to
both the claimants-injured, who are father and daughter, is not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
in dispute in these appeals. Both the claimants-injured are
before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
Admittedly, the insurance company has not filed any appeal
and it has satisfied the award of the Tribunal.
11. In MFA No.100330/2023 (MVC No.511/2018),
the claimant-Rajesh Gowada examined as PW1 and doctor
examined as PW2. In terms of Ex.P10 & P11-Discharge
Summaries, the claimant has suffered following injuries:
a) Open GA type 3b right distal third tibia shaft
comminuted fracture with soft tissue loss;
b) Tibialis anterior and extensor hallucis longus
tendon injury; and
c) Lacerated wound on the left leg.
12. The claimant was an inpatient in the hospital for
about 63 days on different occasions. PW2-doctor has deposed
in his chief-examination that considering all clinical and
radiological findings, he was of the opinion that the claimant
has got permanent physical disability to an extent of 66% to
the right lower limb. The Tribunal, taking note of injuries
sustained by the claimant and the evidence of PW2-doctor both
oral and documentary, has rightly assessed whole body
disability at 22%, which needs no interference.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
13. It is stated that the claimant was doing coolie work
and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The notional income
assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per month is on the
lower side. The claimant has not produced any cogent or
acceptable material to establish that he was earning a sum of
Rs.12,000/- per month. In the absence of any material on
record to establish exact income of the appellant/claimant, this
Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of
the year 2018, normally would assess notional income at
Rs.11,750/- per month, taking note of the chart prepared by
KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage
fixed. In the instant case also, in the absence of any material
evidence to establish the income of the injured, we are of the
opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to
determine the income of the injured at Rs.11,750/- p.m. taking
note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA including the
minimum wage fixed. There is no dispute with regard to age
of the injured i.e. 40 years and appropriate multiplier of 15.
Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation
under the head of loss of future earning due to disability as
under:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
Rs.11,750 x 12 x 15 x 22% = Rs.4,65,300/-
14. Taking note of the nature of injuries suffered by the
claimant, evidence of PW2-doctor and duration of treatment
taken by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded just and
reasonable compensation on the other heads, which requires no
interference.
15. Thus, the claimant-Rajesh Gowda is entitled to
modified compensation under the head of loss of future income
due to disability at Rs.4,65,300/- as against Rs.3,56,400/-
awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled
to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,08,900/- (Rs.4,65,300-
3,56,400), which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
16. In MFA No.100331/2023 (MVC No.516/2018),
the minor claimant-Gayatri was aged about 15 years at the
time of accident. In terms of Ex.P21-Wound Certificate, Ex.P22
& P23-Discharge Summaries, the claimant-Gayatri has suffered
following injuries:
a) Open GA type 3b both bone mid shaft fracture of
right leg (A0 42-B2) with lacerated wound over
right heel.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
b) Right tibia infected non-uniting middle third tibia
shaft fracture with IM nail.
c) Debridment and split skin grafting over right leg.
17. The claimant also underwent implant removal +
reaming + sequestrectomy. On clinical and radiological
examination, PW3-doctor has opined that the fracture has not
united and thus, the claimant has got permanent physical
disability to an extent of 57% to right lower limb. Taking note
of evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.P21-Wound Certificate, P22
& P23-Discharge Summaries, the Tribunal assessed the
disability of the injured at 22% to the whole body, which in our
view is just and proper, does not call for interference.
18. At the time of the accident, the claimant-Gayatri
was a student studying in 10th Standard. The Tribunal taking
note of the age of the injured as well as year of the accident,
assessed notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is
just and proper, requires no interference. Taking note of
nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, duration of
treatment taken by her and also medical evidence on record,
the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,37,340/-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
under various heads, which according to us is just and
reasonable and same is undisturbed.
19. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of marriage prospects. It
is to be noted here that due to the accidental injuries, the
injured-Gayatri underwent wound debridment with closed
reduction and internal fixation with 10x36 nebula
intramedullary nailing. She also complained of pain and
restricted movement of right knee and ankle, which gradually
made her to limping movement. The result of injuries has
made her life difficult, because of deformity of her right leg.
The claimant is unable to sit, walk and stand properly. It is
pertinent to point out herein that the appellant as a
consequence of her grievous injuries will not be able to work or
enjoy her future life in the same manner as she used to prior to
the accident. It is also to be noted that the appellant would not
be able to marry as a consequence of the accident and is forced
to live with the pain and suffering throughout her life, as she
cannot fulfill her desired goals because of the injuries suffered.
Because of the said injuries, the normal expectation of life of
the claimant is impaired. She has also lost her ability to lead a
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
normal life and enjoy amenities. No amount of money or other
material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and
suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident.
Keeping in mind all these factors, we deem it appropriate to
award a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of marriage
prospects, which would meet the ends of justice.
20. Thus, the claimant-Gayatri is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, which carries interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
21. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Both appeals are allowed in part.
b) The impugned common judgment and award
of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that
the appellant/claimant in MFA
No.100330/2023 is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,08,900/- and the
claimant in MFA No.100331/2023 is entitled
to enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/-.
c) The enhanced compensation amount in both
the appeals shall carry interest at the rate of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4188-DB
6% per annum from the date of petitions till
realization.
d) Respondent/Insurance Company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
in both appeals with accrued interest before
the Tribunal within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
e) On such deposit, the same shall be released
in favour of the respective claimants on
proper identification.
f) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:VP
