Karnataka High Court
Mahesh vs Thirumala Cabs And Anr on 19 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
MFA No. 200994 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.200994 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MAHESH S/O KAREPPA KANEKAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
NOW NIL, R/O NEAR PILLAMMA TEMPLE,
10TH CROSS, TARFILE RAILWAY STATION AREA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN 1. THIRUMALA CABS
JAMKHANDI THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,
Location: HIGH M SUNIL KUMAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O D. NO.2-06-003, RAVINDRA NAGAR,
YANAM PUDUCHERRY-533-464.
2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
BILGUNDI COMPLEX, NEAR MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O DATED 15.06.2022 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH
BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
MFA No. 200994 of 2022
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN MVC NO.572/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KALABURAGI. B) ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
13.08.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.572/2019 BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT-KALABURAGI AND
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.2,83,000/- WITH 6
PERCENT INTEREST TO RS.33,64,000/- WITH 12 PERCENT
INTEREST
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 K NATARAJAN)
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal in MVC No.572/2019 dated 13.08.2021.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation
of Rs.33,64,000/- for the injuries sustained in the road
traffic accident dated 08.11.2018. On 08.11.2018 at
5:30a.m. appellant along with is relatives was going to
Mumbai in a bus bearing No.PY-04/A-2975. When the bus
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
was preceding Amrutanjan bridge on Mumbai-Pune new
express highway, the driver of the bus drove the bus in
high speed and in rash and negligent manner. He lost the
control over the bus and dashed it to the roadside divider,
due to which the appellant sustained grievous injuries i.e.,
fracture of L1 compression with wedge and other parts of
the body. He was shifted to the Lokmanya hospital, Nigdi
Pune and thereafter, he was shifted to Basaveshwara
hospital, Kalaburgi and he claims to have spend more than
Rs.4,00,000/- towards the treatment. The petitioner
claims that he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and
due to the injury and disablement, he is unable to do the
work. Hence, he filed the claim petition claiming
compensation.
3. Though, respondent No.1 was served, neither
he appeared nor filed any statement of objections.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed
statements disputing the negligence of the driver,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
occupation, income and age of the appellant. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the appeal.
4. Based upon the same, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
"1.Whether the petitioner proves that, on
08.11.2018 at or about 5:30 a.m., he along with
his relatives were going to Mumbai to attend the
marriage function in a bus bearing Reg. No. PY-
04/A-2975 when the said bus was near
Amruthanjan Bridge on Mumbai-Pune New Express
High way drove it in high speed and in rash and
negligent manner and he lost control over the bus
and dashed to the road divider due to which the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries?
2.Whether the petitioner further proves that, he is
entitled for the compensation? If so, to what
quantum and from whom?
3.What order or award?"
5. The petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and
he got marked 13 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13. He
examined Dr. Rajendra Kothari as PW-2. The respondent
got marked the Insurance policy as Ex.R-1. After
considering the evidence, the Tribunal awarded
compensation under various heads, totaling Rs.2,83,000/-
with 6% interest and fixed the liability on the Insurance
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
Company. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the claimant is before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant seriously
contended that the Tribunal erred in calculating the
disability. The Tribunal assessed disability at 8% despite
the evidence of PW-2 and the disability certificate issued
by the doctor, which suggested 49% disability to the
whole body and it is not to any particular limb, so as to
reduce the disability to 8% to the whole body. The
appellant suffered fracture to L1 vertebra, lack of control
over urination, gall bladder injury and nervous weakness.
That apart, he cant lift the weight and do the coolie work.
Therefore, the Tribunal failed to consider these factors and
arbitrarily reduced the disability percentage to 8%. The
learned counsel further contended that the compensation
awarded for pain and suffering, diet, attendant charges,
loss of amenities and other heads are also very meager.
Hence, he prayed for allowing this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-Insurance Company supported the award
passed by the Tribunal and contended that the evidence of
the doctor, who assessed the disability is not a treated
doctor. Some injuries were not mentioned in the wound
certificate and appeared only in the disability certificate.
Therefore, it was argued that only 1/3rd of the suggested
disability should be considered for whole-body assessment
instead of 49% as suggested by the doctor. Hence, prayed
for dismissing the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent
and after perusing the records, the point that arises for
our consideration is as under:
"Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is meager and needs for enhancement?
If yes, to what extent?."
9. Upon considering the records, the fact that the
accident dated 08.11.2018 occurred due to the rash and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the
first respondent is not in dispute. The injured claimant was
a passenger in the said bus and was initially admitted to
Lokmanya Hospital, Pune, and later shifted to
Basaveshwara Hospital, Kalaburgi. Ex.P-4, the wound
certificate, Ex.P-7, the discharge card and Ex.P-8, the
disability certificate, confirm the injuries sustained by the
appellant. As per the evidence of PW-2 doctor, R1 scan
dorso-lumbar spine done on 08.11.2018 revealed anterior
wedge fracture of L1 vertebra causing narrowing of canal
and compression on cord cons, narrow edema, cord
contusion and hematoma in dorso lumbar canal, both
muscles and soft tissues edema. He has also produced X-
Ray of DL spine which shows fracture of T11, T12 and L1
vertebra with internal devices in situate T11 to L2
vertebra. He opined that the patient had grievous
traumatic dorso-lumber vertebral fracture leading to cord
injury as found clinically and radiologically and underwent
stabilization surgery and at present he has Paraparesis-
partial loss of motor power in both lower limbs that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
accounts for disability of 30%. Mild urinary and fecal
incontinence- no control over passing of urine and fecal
matter that accounts for disability of 25%. The doctor
assessed the disability at 49% to the whole body, but the
Tribunal reduced it to 8% on the ground that the fracture
of gall bladder was not mentioned in the wound certificate.
But, there are no other reasons assigned by the Tribunal.
That apart a perusal of the finding of the Tribunal would
show that there is no scientific reason assigned, except a
few words that some injury not mentioned the wound
certificate. Therefore, reducing the disability below 1/3rd is
not correct. However, the fact of the case is that the
appellant is unable to control over the urinal both lower
limbs were disabled due to the fracture of lumbar region
apart from T-11 and 12 fractures, which were compressed.
Such being the case, we are of the opinion that though the
doctor has opined 49% disability to the whole body, we
have reassessed the disability and we propose to assess
25% disability to whole body instead of 49% suggested by
the doctor and 8% taken by the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
10. As regard the income of the claimant, there is
no income proof produced by the appellant. Therefore, we
propose to consider his income as Rs.11,750/-, which was
already considered by the Tribunal. If, Rs.11,750/- is
considered as income and 18 is taken as multiplier,
compensation under the head of loss of future earnings
works out to Rs.6,34,500/- (Rs.11,750 x 12 x 18 x 25%).
As regards the Pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.25,000/- and having regard to the injuries sustained by
the appellant, we propose to increase it to Rs.40,000/-.
The medical expense of Rs.7,840/- awarded by the
Tribunal is retained. Under the head of diet and attendant
charges, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-,
where the appellant was admitted in the hospital for 16
days, which is also retained. As regards the loss of income
during laid up period, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.11,750/-, which is enhanced to Rs.35,250/- (11,750 x
3). Towards loss of amenities, the age of the petitioner is
20 years he has suffered a lumbar injury and unable to sit
long time and lift any weight and therefore, a sum of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
Rs.40,000/- is awarded as against Rs.10,000/-. The
compensation reassessed under various heads is as under:
Description Amount
Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.7,840/-
Diet and attendant charges Rs.25,000/-
Loss of income during laid Rs.35,250/-
up period
Loss of future earning Rs.6,34,500/-
Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.7,82,590/-
Award of the Tribunal Rs.2,83,000/-
Enhanced Compensation Rs.4,99,590/-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The appellant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,99,590/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of filing of petition, till realization
of entire compensation. The Insurance
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1729-DB
Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
iii. 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
