Karnataka High Court

Sri.Shivanagouda vs Habibul Rehman on 10 March, 2025

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                      -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB
                                                            MFA No. 103865 of 2016




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                               DATED THIS THE 10TH 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.103865 OF 2016 (MV-I)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
                      S/O. DODDANAGOUDA PATIL,
                      AGED ABOUT: 29 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
                      R/O: NAVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL,
                      NOW RESIDING AT KUNIKERI VILLAGE,
                      TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL.

                                                                        ...APPELLANT

                      (BY SRI A.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   SRI. HABIBUL REHMAN
                           S/O. ABDUL RASHID,
                           AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
Digitally signed by        OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.KA-01/C-9095,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA KALMATH           R/O: VILL BHIKANPUR VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH             POST: CHHALET TEN KANTH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                  DIST: MORADABAD-244001,
                           STATE: UTTAR PRADESH.

                      2.   SRI. S. SUBHADAS
                           S/O. SHANMUGAM,
                           OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
                           NO.KA-01/C-9095,
                           R/O: NO.10, S.S.S BUILDING,
                           1ST MAIN, A.B. ROAD,
                           CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018.
                                -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB
                                       MFA No. 103865 of 2016




3.   NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
     REGIONAL MANAGER, KUSUGAL ROAD,
     HUBBALLI-580023,
     (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     74-A, PARANATHY ROAD,
     NAMAKKAL DIVISION,
     TAMILNADU-637001).

                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE AND
    SRI SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE AND
    SMT. ASMA N.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    R1 AND R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)


      THIS    MISCELLANEOUS    FIRST   APPEAL   IS   FILED   UNDER

SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO

ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY MODIFY THE JUDGMENT

AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2016, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT KOPPAL IN M.V.C NO.199/2015, BY

ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN CLAIM PETITION,

IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS

UNDER:


CORAM:       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
              AND
              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
                                         -3-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB
                                                MFA No. 103865 of 2016




                               ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881, challenging the

judgment and award dated 26.08.2016, passed in MVC

No.199/2015, by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT,

Koppal2.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.

3. It is the case of claimant that, on 31.10.2014, when

he was riding his motorcycle and came near bus stand of

Koppal on NH-63, a tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA-

01/C/9095, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle of claimant,

causing the accident in question, whereunder, the claimant

sustained crush injury to his right leg. Claiming compensation

for the injuries sustained in the said accident, the claimant

instituted claim proceedings arraying the driver, owner and

Hereinafter referred as to 'M.V. ACT'

Hereinafter referred as to the 'Tribunal'

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

insurer of the tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA-

01/C/9095 as respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively before

the Tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte

before the Tribunal and did not contest the proceedings. The

respondent No.3/insurer entered appearance through their

counsel, filed statement of objections and contested the claim

proceedings.

4. The claimant was examined as PW.1 and a doctor

as PW.2. Ex.P1 to Ex.P27 have been marked in evidence. The

representative of insurer was examined as RW.1. Ex.R1 to

Ex.R3 have been marked in evidence.

5. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated

26.08.2016, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a

compensation of ₹8,34,615/- together with interest at 6% per

annum and directed the respondent No.3/insurer to pay the

compensation awarded. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of

compensation awarded, the claimant has filed the present

appeal.

6. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and

liability are not under challenge and the insurer has satisfied

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by depositing

amount awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the only aspect that is

to be considered in the present appeal is with regard to the

adequacy of quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel Sri. A.B. Patil, appearing for the

appellant/claimant, submits that the Tribunal has erred in not

assessing the income of claimant in terms of the Service

Certificate (Ex.P12) and further erred in not considering that

the claimant had a permanent job. It is contended that the

claimant was working as 'Monitor' in the Child Development

Project Officer3 office, Yelburga. It is further contended that the

right leg of claimant was amputated below the knee and hence

the claimant ought to have been awarded a higher

compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Preeti Shashank,

appearing for respondent No.3/insurer, contends that the

Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income of claimant,

since the claimant has failed to produce any records to

Hereinafter referred to as the 'CDPO'

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

demonstrate that he had a regular job. It is further contended

that the Service Certificate (Ex.P12), merely discloses that the

claimant was working as 'Monitor' in UNICIEF on a contractual

basis and was paid an honorarium and not any regular salary.

It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and proper.

9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have

been considered and material on record including the records of

Tribunal have been perused.

10. The question that arises for consideration is

'whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is liable to be enhanced?'

11. In the claim petition, the claimant has averred that

he was working as 'Monitor' in CDPO office at Yelburga. In the

affidavit, by way of examination in chief, the claimant has

deposed that he was working in the office of CDPO, Yelburga as

'Monitor officer' under the world scheme of the UNICIEF and his

duty was to visit Yelburga taluk and monitor the work of Child

Development project in Anganawadi Centers. Ex.P12 is the

Service Certificate, dated 01.04.2015, issued by the Child

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

Development Officer, which discloses that claimant was

employed from 04.2.2013 to 31.10.2014. Ex.P12 discloses that

claimant was liable to be paid ₹15,000/- in the year 2013 and

₹20,000/- for 11 months in the year 2014. It is pertinent to

note that accident occurred on 31.10.2014, after expiry of 10

months. The claimant has not adduced any other oral or

documentary evidence apart from Ex.P12, to demonstrate that

he was working in a permanent job. No documents have also

been produced to demonstrate the educational qualification of

claimant. In view of the same, it is just and proper that the

income of claimant is required to be re-assessed as notional

income as per the income chart that is being followed for

settlement of claims in the Lok Adalat conducted by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and having regard to

the date of the accident, the income of claimant is re-assessed

at ₹7,500/- per month.

12. The doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has

deposed that claimant has sustained disability of 50% to the

right leg. The Tribunal has also, noticing the material on record,

assessed the physical permanent disability of claimant at 50%

to the whole body, which is found to be correct. 40% future

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

prospects are required to be added to the income of claimant,

while assessing the loss of future earning capacity. Hence, the

income for the purpose of loss of future earning capacity is

(7,500 + 40% = 7,500 + 3,000) ₹10,500/-. The claimant was

aged 28 years old at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal

has adopted multiplier of 17, is just and proper.

13. The compensation under various heads is re-

assessed as follows:

13.1 Loss of future income due to disability is re-

assessed as under:

(10,500 x 12 x 17 x 50%) = ₹10,71,000/-

13.2 The claimant was treated as an impatient for 47

days and the right leg of claimant was amputated below the

knee. It is just and proper that pain and suffering be

reassessed at ₹60,000/- as against ₹10,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

13.3 Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹1,60,755/- towards

medical expenses, which are as per the actual bills, is just and

proper.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

13.4 Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained

and period of treatment and the fact that claimant was

impatient for 47 days, it is just and proper to award a sum of

₹30,000/- towards food, nutrition, diet and attendant charges

as against ₹9,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

13.5 Having regard to the nature of injuries and the

resultant disability, it is just and proper to award a sum of

₹50,000/- towards loss of amenities.

13.6 Having regard to the period of treatment, the laid

up period is taken as four months and a sum of ₹30,000/-

(7,500 x 4) is awarded towards loss of income during the

period of treatment as against ₹20,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

13.7 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹50,000/-

towards cost of purchase of artificial leg. Reliance is placed by

the learned counsel for the appellant on the quotation dated

17.03.2016 (Ex.P22) for right Transtibial prosthesis, which

discloses that the cost of a prosthesis leg for claimant is

₹2,54,940/-. However, it is relevant to note that Ex.P22 is only

a quotation and there is no material on record to demonstrate

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

that claimant has purchased an artificial leg. It is further

relevant to note that the claimant has not adduced evidence of

any witness to demonstrate the cost of artificial leg. However,

having regard to the fact that, the right leg below the knee of

claimant has been amputated, keeping in mind the fact that

claimant is required to fix an artificial leg to his right leg, it is

just and proper that a sum of ₹1,00,000/- be awarded towards

cost of purchase of artificial leg.

13.8 The claimant is aged 28 years and is unmarried.

The injuries sustained in the accident will definitely affect his

marriage prospects. Keeping in mind the compensation

awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for loss of marriage

prospects in the cases of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager,

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and

Another4 and Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Others5, it is

just and proper to award a sum of ₹1,50,000/- towards loss of

marriage prospects.

14. Accordingly, the total compensation under various

heads is re-assessed as follows:

(2022) 7 SCC 738

(2020) 4 SCC 413

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB

Sl.No. Heads Amount Amount awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal (₹) Court (₹)

1. Pain and sufferings 10,000.00 60,000.00

2. Medical expenses 1,60,755.00 1,60,755.00

3. Loss of future 5,84,460.00 10,71,000.00 income due to disability

4. Cost of purchase of 50,000.00 1,00,000.00 artificial leg

5. Loss of amenities, 9,400.00 -------

nutrition, diet and attendant charges

6. Loss of amenities ------ 50,000.00

7. Towards food, ------ 30,000.00 nourishment, diet and attendant charges

8. Loss of income 20,000.00 30,000.00 during laid up period

9. Loss of marriage ------ 1,50,000.00 prospects Total 8,34,615.00 16,51,755.00

15. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to

enhanced compensation of ₹8,17,140/-

(₹16,51,755 - ₹8,34,615) together with interest at 6% p.a.

Accordingly, the question framed for consideration is answered

in the 'affirmative'.

16. In view of the aforementioned, the following:

- 12 -

                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:4559-DB





                       ORDER

i)     The appeal is allowed in part;


ii)    The judgment and award dated 26.08.2016,

passed in MVC No.199/2015, by the Senior Civil

Judge & Additional MACT, Koppal, is modified to the

extent stated herein. In all other respects, the

judgment and award of the Tribunal remains

unaltered;

iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced

compensation of ₹8,17,140/- with interest at 6%

per annum from the date of petition till its

realization in addition to the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal.

iv) Respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation

together with accrued interest within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment;