Karnataka High Court
M/S The Oriental Insurance vs Sri Maneesh Kumar on 7 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
MFA No. 9463 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015
MFA No. 5298 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9463 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7958 OF 2015 (MV-I)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5298 OF 2016 (MV-I)
IN MFA No.9463/2015
BETWEEN
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, KOLAR
THROUGH MOTOR THIRD PARTY
CLAIMS HUB, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE-1
BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by NIRMALA (BY SRI K SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE A/W
DEVI SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT AND
OF
KARNATAKA
1 . SRI. MANEESH KUMAR
S/O MANGILAL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT RAJPET ROAD,
KUPPAM ROAD
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,
BANGARPET TQ-563173
2 . CHINNA OBUL REDDY
S/O O PULLA REDDY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
MFA No. 9463 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015
MFA No. 5298 of 2016
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT NO.1340,
SANJEEVANAGAR
ANDHRA PRADESH 04
3 . THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-3, NO-7
UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI,
2ND FLOOR, ROSY TOWERS
NUNGAMBAKAM,
CHENNAI-600002
4 . M CHEZHIYAN
S/O MUTHUSWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE , DINESH ILLAM
R/AT 4TH CROSS,
ROBERTSONPET
K G F BANGARPET TALUK-563173
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI B S UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 06.07.2021
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 06.01.2025)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, (SITTING AT KGF), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.17,20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION AND
ETC.
IN MFA No.7958/2015
BETWEEN
M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
D.O-13, ROSY TOWERS,
2ND FLOOR, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 034
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
MFA No. 9463 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015
MFA No. 5298 of 2016
BANGALORE-560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UMESH B S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI MANEESH KUMAR
S/O MANGILAL,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT RAJPET ROAD,
KUPPAM ROAD, KYASAMBALLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 121.
2. U.CHINNA OBUL REDDY
S/O PULLA REDDY
AGE MAJOR, EXACT NOT KNOWN
TO APPELLANT
R/AT NO.1340, SANJEEVANAGAR,
TADIPATRI TOWN AND MANDAL,
ANATHPUR DISTRICT,
ANDRAPRADESH-515 411.
3. SRI.N.CHEZHIYAN
S/O K.MUTHUSWAMY,
AGE MAJOR,
EXACT NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT,
R/AT AT DINESH ILLAM,
4TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET,
KGF TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 122.
4. M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
BRANCH OFFICER,
KOLAR BRANCH, BAGALUR MANSION,
2ND FLOOR, DODDAPET,
KOLAR TOWN AND DISTRICT-563 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI K SURAYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4
NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 29.06.2021)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
MFA No. 9463 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015
MFA No. 5298 of 2016
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F) AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.17,20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION AND
ETC.
IN MFA No.5298/2016
BETWEEN
SRI. MANEESH KUMAR
S/O. MANGILAL,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RAJPET ROAD,
KUPPAM ROAD,
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT SUSHMITHA G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. CHINNA OBUL REDDY
S/O. PULLA REDDY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT NO.1340,
SANJEEVANAGAR,
ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-500 038.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISION OFFICE-3, NO.7,
UTHAMAR, GANDHI SALAI,
2ND FLOOR, ROSY TOWERS,
NUNGAMBAKAM,
CHENNAI-600 034,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
3. M. CHEZHIYAN
S/O. MUTHUSWAMY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT DINESH ILLAM,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
MFA No. 9463 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7958 of 2015
MFA No. 5298 of 2016
4TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET,
K.G.F.-563 122,
BANGARPET TALUK.
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
KOLAR BRANCH OFFICE,
BAGALUR MANSION, II FLOOR,
DODDAPET, KOLAR-563 101.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B S UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI K SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 22.11.2017
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 13.06.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 27.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, POONACHA.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
All the above appeals are filed calling in question the
judgment and award dated 22.7.2015 passed in MVC
No.16/2007 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
Kolar (sitting at K.G.F)1. Hence they are taken up together for
consideration.
2. The parties herein are referred as per their rank
before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the
present appeals are that on 13.2.2007 the claimant was
traveling as a passenger of bus bearing registration No.KA-08-
A-4777. That when the said bus reached Sandaghatta Cross,
from the opposite direction lorry bearing registration No.AP-02-
W-1564 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus
in which the claimant was traveling causing the accident in
question. Due to the said accident, an iron rod of the bus
entered into the head of the claimant from the frontal portion
and came out on the left side of the neck. The claimant was
shifted to Kuppam Medical College where he was given first aid
and thereafter, shifted to Bangalore for further treatment.
Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the said
accident, the claimant instituted the claim proceedings arraying
the owner and insurer of the lorry as respondent Nos.1 and 2
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
and the owner and insurer of the bus as respondent Nos.3 and
4 before the Tribunal.
4. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 contested the
proceedings before the Tribunal.
5. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and a doctor as
PW.2. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked in evidence. An employee of
the second respondent/insurer of the lorry was examined as
RW.1. Exs.R1 to R7 were marked in evidence. The Tribunal vide
its judgment and award dated 17.9.2010, partly allowed the
claim petition, awarded compensation of ₹7,29,416/- together
interest at 6% per annum and held that the first
respondent/owner of the lorry liable to pay the compensation
awarded.
6. Being aggrieved, the owner of the lorry preferred
MFA No.225/2011, which was disposed of by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2014. The
claimant preferred MFA No.900/2011. A coordinate Bench of
this Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2014 disposed of the said
appeal wherein its judgment dated 13.11.2014 passed in MFA
No.225/2011 was noticed and it was held that the insurer of
the lorry is liable to satisfy the compensation awarded. Further,
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
this Court, noticing the contention put forth by the claimant
that he has incurred huge medical expenses and that he could
not produce the relevant medical bills, remanded the matter to
the Tribunal to mark necessary documents.
7. On remand, the claimant got examined another
doctor as PW.3 and marked Ex.P25. The Tribunal noticed the
order dated 25.11.2014 passed by this Court in MFA
No.900/2011 and by its judgment and award dated 22.7.2015
partly allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of
`17,20,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a., and directed
respondent Nos.2 and 4, the insurers of the lorry and bus
respectively to pay the compensation awarded.
8. Being aggrieved, the insurer of the bus has
preferred MFA No.9463/2015, the insurer of the lorry has
preferred MFA No.7958/2015 and the claimant has preferred
MFA No.5298/2016.
9. Learned Counsel Sri C.R.Ravishankar appearing for
the appellant in MFA No.9463/2015 - the insurer of the bus
contends that having regard to the order dated 25.11.2014
passed in MFA No.900/2011, whereunder this Court has held
that the insurer of the lorry was liable to satisfy the award of
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
the Tribunal, the finding of the Tribunal recorded in the
operative portion of its judgment dated 22.7.2015 holding
respondent Nos.2 and 4, the insurers of both vehicles to pay
the compensation is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
10. Learned counsel Sri B.S.Umesh appearing for the
appellant in MFA No.7958/2015 - the insurer of the lorry does
not dispute the finding recorded in the order dated 25.11.2014
passed in MFA No.900/2011, wherein it has been held that the
insurer of the lorry is liable to pay the compensation awarded
and fairly submits that the judgment and award of the Tribunal
directing the insurers of both vehicles to pay the compensation
requires to be interfered with. It is further contended that
having regard to the limited scope of remand made by this
Court vide its order dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA
No.900/2011, wherein this Court has specifically remanded the
matter only for the purpose of production of medical bills, the
Tribunal awarding compensation on various other heads is
erroneous and contrary to the scope of remand made by this
Court. That the claimant, consequent to the remand did not
produce any other medical bills. Instead PW.3 was examined by
the claimant who has deposed regarding the alleged disability
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
of the claimant. That the doctor- PW.2 has not assessed the
whole body disability and that the Tribunal in its judgment
dated 17.9.2010 passed in the earlier round of litigation has,
categorically recorded a finding that the claimant has appeared
and answered all the questions in the cross examination.
Hence, it is contended that the disability assessed by the
Tribunal is erroneous. That the compensation on other heads is
also on the higher side.
11. Learned counsel Smt.Sushmitha G appearing for
learned counsel Sri Gopalakrishna for the appellant in MFA
No.5298/2016 - claimant contends that order of this Court
dated 25.11.2014 in MFA No.900/2011 was an open remand
and that the Tribunal was justified in reassessing the
compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought
to have applied the multiplier of 18 having regard to the fact
that the claimant was admittedly aged 20 years as on date of
the accident and that the multiplier of 16 adopted by the
Tribunal is erroneous. That the injuries sustained by the
claimant are ghastly and that higher amounts of compensation
ought to be awarded on various heads. That the income of the
claimant assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
12. The submissions of above learned counsel have
been considered and the material on record including the
records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that
arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that
the compensation was liable to be paid by
respondent Nos.2 and 4 i.e., the insurers of both
the vehicles ?
ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in reassessing the
entire compensation and ought to have
considered only the further medical bills after the
remand made by this Court vide its order dated
25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011?
iii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced?
Re. question No.(i):
13. It is clear from para 6 of the judgment dated
25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011 that this Court
following the order dated 13.11.2014 passed MFA No.225/2011
held that the insurer of the lorry is liable to satisfy the award of
the Tribunal. The said aspect of the matter is also not seriously
disputed by the insurer of the lorry. In view of the same,
question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the
negative.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
Re. question No.(ii):
14. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment
dated 25.11.2014 passed in MFA No.900/2011 while
considering the appeal filed by the claimant ordered as follows:
"6. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the
Tribunal that the 1st Respondent-owner of the offending
vehicle is liable to satisfy the award is set aside.
Following the order passed in MFA No.225/2011
dated 13.11.2014, we hold that the Insurer is
liable to satisfy the award.
7. Insofar as the prayer for enhancement of
compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the
claimant submits that there are a number of medical
bills which were produced and which have not been
marked.
8. In view of the serious injuries suffered by the
claimant, he could have incurred heavy medical
expenses and in view of non-marking of those medical
bills, he could not claim appropriate the medical
expenses incurred. Therefore, it is just and appropriate
if the claimant is provided an opportunity to mark
the said documents during the course of evidence in
order to receive a just and fair compensation.
9. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the
considered view that it is just and appropriate to
remand the matter to the Tribunal in order to
enable the claimant to mark the necessary
documents during the course of evidence in order
to receive a just compensation.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The
insurer is held liable to satisfy the award. The matter is
remanded to the Tribunal for determination of
appropriate compensation as held herein above.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
The claimant is at liberty to lead additional
evidence in support of his claims.
The parties to appear before the Tribunal
concerned on 27.01.2015."
(emphasis supplied)
15. It is clear from the aforementioned that at para 7 of
its order, this Court considered the submissions made on behalf
of the learned counsel for the claimant. Further, at para 8, this
Court held that it was just and proper to provide an opportunity
to the claimant to mark the documents in order to receive just
and fair compensation. At para 9, this Court further ordered
that the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal to enable
the claimant to mark necessary documents to receive just
compensation.
16. It is clear from the aforementioned that the remand
made by this Court to the Tribunal was to enable the claimant
to mark necessary documents in order to receive just
compensation. The remand made by this Court can, in no
manner be construed as being limited to production of medical
bills only. In any event, the Tribunal was required to consider
and award just compensation for the injuries sustained by the
claimant. In view of the same, question No.(ii) framed for
consideration is answered in the affirmative.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
Re. question No.(iii):
17. The claimant is an 18 year old student who was
pursuing B.E., Engineering and also helping his father in his
cloth business. In the accident which occurred on 13.2.2007 a
rod pierced through the head of the claimant over the frontal
aspect in the middle and came out through the backside of the
neck. The discharge summary issued by Sparsh Hospital
(Ex.P7) and the CT Scan conducted by Narayana Hrudayala
Hospital (Ex.P10) disclose that there were multiple fractures
involving frontal bone and base of the skull. Ex.P7 further
discloses that the claimant underwent seven surgeries i.e., on
13.2.2007, 21.2.2007, 2.3.2007, 10.3.2007, 24.3.2007,
3.4.2007 and 5.4.2007. The claimant was an inpatient at
Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, from 13.2.2007 to 9.6.2007 i.e.,
for a total period of 117 days. Discharge summary issued by
Narayana Institute of Neuro Sciences (Ex.P5) discloses that the
claimant was treated as an inpatient from 15.11.2007 to
20.11.2007 i.e., for a period of 6 days. Thus, totally the
claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of
123 days.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
18. PW.2 - Dr. R.Shashikumar has deposed that he is
the Assistant Surgeon and Medical Officer at Sparsh Hospital,
Bengaluru. He has deposed regarding various scans and
procedures conducted in the said hospital. That on 18.3.2010
the claimant came to the hospital with a complaint of head
ache on and off, unable to concentrate, loss of memory,
irritability, confusion and distraction. That as per Neuro
psychological profile, patient has disability rating of Grade 3,
deficit is present which interferes with adjustment of daily
living. PW.2 has been cross-examined in detail. He has
admitted that he has done M.D., in Forensic Medicine. He has
denied that he is not a qualified person to give report on
neurological treatment.
19. Dr. Paparajamurthy Dantam (erroneously mentioned
as Sundaramurthy in the judgment of the Tribunal) has been
examined as PW.3. He deposed that he was working as Neuro
Surgeon at RLJ Hospital. He has deposed regarding the
treatment given to the claimant. That the claimant was
evaluated by him on 19.6.2015 as an outpatient and that the
claimant has mild cognitive disability, facial asymmetry
involving forehead, left eye lid retraction with exotropia and
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
right nystagmus. PW.3 has deposed that the claimant has
intellectual disability at 25% (mild cognitive disability), physical
impairment of 16% and the permanent physical impairment
(disability) in neurological condition is 36.55%. PW.3 has also
been cross-examined in detail.
20. The claimant has produced various medical bills and
has stated that the total expenditure towards medical bills is
`11,78,589.92. The Tribunal considering the documents has
awarded a sum of `11.00 lakhs towards medical expenses,
which is just and proper. Considering nature of injuries, period
of hospitalization and treatment, Tribunal should have awarded
`11,78,590/-. Hence, the compensation towards medical
expenses is reassessed as `11,78,590/-.
21. It is clear that although the claimant was treated as
an inpatient for a total period of 123 days, he was advised to
take follow-up treatment. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
`20,000/- towards nutritional, incidental and traveling
expenses. Having regard to the total period of hospitalization
during which he was treated as an inpatient, it is just and
proper that the expenses towards attendant charges, nutritious
food and incidental expenses be re-assessed as `1.00 lakh.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
22. The claimant has sustained multiple fractures to the
skull and has undergone seven surgeries. It is clear that the
injuries sustained by him are serious and the claimant has
taken treatment for a long period of time for the same. Hence,
compensation for pain and suffering is re-assessed at `2lakhs
as against `50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
23. The claimant has averred that he is a student.
Admission bills (Ex.P12), Transfer Certificate (Ex.P13),
Polytechnic Certificate (Ex.P14) and Study Certificate (Ex.P20)
disclose the same. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of
the claimant as `50,000/- and taken 50% of the same for the
purpose of calculating loss of future earning capacity.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kandasami & Ors., v. Lindabriyal & Anr.,2 has assessed the
income of an Engineering Graduate with respect to an accident
which occurred on 28.9.2008 at `25,000/- p.m. In the present
case, the claimant is also an Engineering Student having a
Diploma degree. Hence, it is just and proper that the income of
the claimant be assessed as `25,000/- p.m.
2023 ACJ 1653/Civil Appeal No.3125/2023 (arising out of SLP (C)
No.33897/2018), DD 24.4.2023)
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
25. PW.3 has assessed the disability at 36.55%. The
Tribunal has noticed that the doctors have opined the disability
at 25%.
26. Although it is the vehement contention of the
learned counsel for the insurer that the Tribunal in its judgment
dated 17.9.2010 passed in the earlier round of litigation has
recorded a finding that the claimant has deposed before the
Tribunal as PW.1 and has answered all the questions in the
cross-examination and hence there is no disability, having
regard to the fact that the claimant has sustained multiple
fractures on the skull and the effect of the iron rod having
pierced his head has its various consequential effects, which is
forthcoming from the neurological reports, a reading of which
discloses the injuries that the claimant has suffered. Doctors
PW.2 and 3 have also stated regarding the cognitive disability.
In view of the testimony of PWs.2 and 3, it is just and proper
that the disability of the claimant be re-assessed as 35%.
27. Admittedly, the claimant is aged 18 years as on the
date of the accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier is 18.
28. Hence, the loss of future earnings is re-assessed as
(`25,000/-x12x18x35%) `18,90,000/- as against `5,50,000/-
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
[`4,00,000/- (loss of future income) and `1,50,000/- (notional
disablement)] awarded by the Tribunal.
29. Having regard to the period during which the
claimant was treated as an inpatient, the period of treatment is
assessed as six months and loss of income towards the same is
assessed as (`25,000/-x6) `1,50,000/-.
30. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained,
resultant disability and the period of treatment, loss of
amenities is assessed as `1.00 lakh.
31. Having regard to the fact that the claimant is a
bachelor and the injuries and the resultant disability would also
affect the marriage prospects, it is just and proper that `1.00
lakh be awarded towards loss of marriage prospects.
32. The claimant has deposed that he has sustained loss
of educational prospects. The injuries sustained by the claimant
and the period of treatment as also the consequential disability
would have definitely impacted the future educational prospects
of the claimant. Hence, it is just and proper that a sum of
`1.00 lakh be awarded on the said aspect.
33. Accordingly, the compensation is reassessed as
follows:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
Sl.No. Heads Amount Amount
awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal(`) Court(`)
1 Pain and sufferings 50,000.00 2,00,000.00
2 Medical expenses 11,00,000.00 11,78,590.00
3. Loss of income during 0.00 1,50,000.00
laid up period
4. Food, diet, nourishment, 20,000.00 1,00,000.00
transportation charges,
attendant charges,
conveyance, etc.
5 Permanent disability, 5,50,000.00 18,90,000.00
loss of amenities, etc.,
6 Loss of amenities 0.00 1,00,000.00
7 Loss of marriage 0.00 1,00,000.00
prospects
8 Future educational 0.00 1,00,000.00
prospects
Total 17,20,000.00 38,18,590.00
34. The claimant is entitled to total compensation of
`38,18,590/- as against `17,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till
realization.
35. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.9463/2015 and MFA No.5298/2016 are
allowed in part;
ii. MFA No.7958/2015 is dismissed;
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
iii. The judgment and award dated 22.7.2015 passed in
MVC No.16/2007 by the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at K.G.F.) is modified
as under:
a. The claimant is entitled to total compensation
of `38,18,590/- together with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till realization;
b. Respondent No.2 - the Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd.,/insurer of the lorry is directed
to pay the compensation awarded together
with the accrued interest;
iv. The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA
No.9463/2015 shall be refunded to the said
appellant;
v. The appellant in MFA No.7958/2015 - insurer of the
lorry shall deposit the balance compensation within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment;
vi. Upon deposit, 40% of the amount shall be kept in a
Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in any
nationalized/scheduled bank of the choice of the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9900-DB
claimant with liberty to draw interest accrued on
that periodically and the remaining 60% of the
amount shall be digitally released to him upon
proper identification;
vii. The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA
No.7958/2015 together with TCRs be transmitted to
the Tribunal;
viii. Draw the modified decree accordingly.
SD/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
ND
