Karnataka High Court
Kumar Rakesh S/O Kamaraj vs Syed Sajjad Anamdar S/O Syed Khasim ... on 19 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
MFA No. 202864 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202864 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR RAKESH S/O KAMARAJ,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: SSLC STUDENT,
R/O BIDDAPUR, BASANTH NAGAR, KALABURAGI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SYED SAJJAD ANAMDAR
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN S/O SYED KHASIM INAMDAR,
JAMKHANDI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE LORRY,
Location: HIGH R/O E-33-1 BEHIND BAZAR ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA NEAR FARSI GALLI, SHAHABAD,
TQ. CHITTAPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585228.
2. THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE
CO LTD.,
R/O 1ST FLOOR, VIRUPAKSHA, OPP. KIMS
MAIN GATE, B ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR
HUBBALLI-580009.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O DATED 14.03.2024 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH
BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
MFA No. 202864 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
08.02.2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM AT KALABURAGI, IN MVC NO. 1181/2019, AND ENHANCED
COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed seeking for higher compensation,
challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2022
passed in MVC No.1181/2019 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
and CJM, Kalaburagi.
2. Brief facts leading to the case are as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
On 02.08.2019 at about 3:10 p.m., the appellant was
proceeding from his school to his house on the footpath.
At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing No. MH-12/KP-
6073 drove the lorry in an rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the appellant, as a result, the claimant
sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and he was
shifted to Dhanwantri Hospital, Kalaburagi and provided
treatment and thereafter, for further treatment he was
shifted to Yashodha Hospital, Hyderabad. It is averred that
the claimant incurred Rs.6,00,000/- towards the medical
expenses. Despite the same, he continued to suffer
physical disability, due to the accidental injuries. Hence,
the claimant filed the petition.
3. Per contra, respondent entered appearance
before the Tribunal and filed objections by denying the
age, claim of the compensation and negligence of the
driver of the lorry in question and sought for dismissing
the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
4. The Tribunal after considering the submissions
of both the counsel framed the issues and recorded the
evidence. Father of the injured has been examined as PW-
1 and Dr. Raju Kulkarni has been examined as PW--2 and
got marked 19 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-19. On the other
hand, respondent examined RW-1 and got marked 3
documents, as Ex.R-1 to R-3. The Tribunal considered the
evidence of the doctor and assessed the disability of the
injured at 14% and by applying the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Master Mallukarjun
Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company
and Another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 awarded a
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the pain and
suffering and disability, Rs.12,000/- under the head of
discomfort, inconvenience etc., and Rs.50,000/- towards
diet and attendant charges and awarded a sum of
Rs.13,25,102/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal in
all awarded a sum of Rs.16,87,000/-. Being aggrieved by
the same, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking higher
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
5. Sri. Sharanabasappa K Babashetty, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
committed graver error in under assessing the disability of
the injured at 14%, which is contrary to the oral testimony
of PW-2, discharges summary at Ex.P-7, disability
certificate at Ex.P-12 and other medical evidences on
record. He submits that the appellant has sustained grave
injuries and he could not recover from the said injuries
and for the rest of his life, he has to suffer the physical
disability. Hence, he seeks for reassessing the disability at
40% as assessed by the doctor.
6. Per contra, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has
supported the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal after taking note of
the evidence on record has rightly assessed the disability
and awarded the compensation, which does not call for
any interference. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has
directed the respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
the compensation and recover the same from the owner of
the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the vehicle
was not having valid and effective driving license on the
date of accident. Hence, she prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondent and meticulously perused the material
available on record. The only point that arises for our
consideration is
"Whether the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference,
with regard to the assessment of disability by the
Tribunal?"
8. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute
the occurrence of accident on 02.08.2019 and that the
appellant has sustained grievous injuries in the said
accident and he was provided treatment initially in
Dhanwantri Hosptial, Kalaburagi and later, at Yashodha
Hospital, Hyderabad and incurred substantial amount
towards the medical expenses. PW-2, the doctor has
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
assessed the disability of the claimant at 40%. We have
perused the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant,
found in Ex.P-12. Admittedly, the appellant was aged
about 15 years at the time of accident and has undergone
treatment in two different hospitals. Ex.P-12 indicates the
disability suffered by the appellant, which corroborates
with the oral testimony of PW-2. Hence, we are of the
opinion that interest of justice would be met, if the
disability of the appellant is reassessed at 31% as against
14% assessed by the Tribunal. Having reassessed the
disability at 31%, by applying the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallukarjun (referred
Supra), the appellant would be entitled for a compensation
of Rs.4,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering
already undergone and to be suffered in future, as against
Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation
awarded under the head of discomfort, inconvenience,
medical expenses, diet and attended charges are
unaltered. The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified as under:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
Description Amount
Towards pain and suffering Rs.4,00,000/-
Towards discomfort,
inconvenience etc., Rs.12,000/-
Towards Medical expenses Rs.13,25,102/-
Towards diet and attendant
Rs.50,000/-
charges
Total Rs.17,87,102/-
Rounded off to Rs.17,87,100/-
Award of the Tribunal Rs.16,87,000/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.1,00,100/-
9. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,00,100/- along with
6% interest from the date of filing of
petition, till realization of entire
compensation.
iii. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company
is directed to pay the compensation within
a period of 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Liberty is reserved for the Insurance
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1730-DB
Company to recover the said compensation
from the owner of the vehicle.
iv. The order of the Tribunal regarding
apportionment of release and deposit is
unaltered.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
