Karnataka High Court
Saikshavali S/O Shamid Miya @ Shaha ... vs Naresh Gouda And Ors on 24 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
MFA No. 200926 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200926 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SAIKSHAVALI S/O SHAMID MIYA
@ SHAHA AHMED MIYA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: COOKING AND
WATER BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.12-12-18,
CHANDRABANDA ROAD, AASHRAYA COLONY,
RAICHUR AND R/O H.NO.2478/18,
KOT TALLAR, RAICHUR-585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARANAGOWDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NARESH GOUDA S/O NARAYANA GOUDA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TSRTC
BUS REGN.NO.TS-08/UB-4788,
Digitally signed R/O H.NO.2-3-55-38, NEW SHANTHI NAGAR,
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UPPAL, R.R.DISTRICT AND NOW
UDAGI R/O BOKALLONAPALLY VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DIST. MAHIBOOB NAGAR-509 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE PERSONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE NEW DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
TSRTC (RAGAREDDY REGION),
M.G.B.S. GOULIGUDA CHAMAN,
HYDERABAD-500 001,
(HIRER OF BUS BEARING
REGN.NO.TS-08/UB-4788).
3. MAHESH LINGAM MANNE
S/O MANNE DURGAIAH,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OWNER OF TSRTC
BUS BEARING NO.TS-08/UB-4788,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
MFA No. 200926 of 2023
PLOT NO.43, GANGIREDDY NAGAR,
TURKAYAMJAL,
ABDULLAPURMET RANGAREDDY,
(TS) TELANGANA-509 339.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
R/O GUNJ CIRCLE ABOVE,
DELHIWALA SWEET HOUSE, OSMAN GUNJ,
RAICHUR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADV. FOR R4;
V/O DTD. 06.03.2023, NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 13.09.2022, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT AT RAICHUR, IN FILE BEARING MVC NO. 70/2021, AND
SOUGHT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF RS.14,50,000/-.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC
No.70/2021 by the II-Addl. Sr.Civil Judge & MACT, Raichur
(for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated 13.09.2022, the petitioner
is before this Court seeking enhancement of
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on
08.12.2020 when the petitioner was going on his scooty
bearing No.KA-36/L-7764 on Raichur-Hyderabad road,
near Yadavanagar cross, the TSRTC bus bearing No.TS-
08/UB-4788 driven by respondent No.1 came in a rash
and negligent manner and in the process of overtaking
another vehicle dashed to the scooty of the claimant and
thereby the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. It
was stated that the respondent No.2-Corporation is hirer
of the said bus and owned by respondent No.3, insured by
respondent No.4. The petitioner fell down and sustained
fracture of the right leg, right hand fingers, right wrist and
also over the back of the head, etc., and he was shifted to
RIMS hospital, Raichur and thereafter he was shifted to
Dr.M.K.Bhandari hospital, where he underwent surgeries.
It was contended that the petitioner was aged about 58
years at the time of the accident, earning Rs.20,000/- per
month by working as a coolie and he having suffered the
permanent disability is entitled for adequate
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
3. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and
4 appeared before the Tribunal. The respondent No.3 did
not appear despite of service of notice and hence, placed
ex parte. The petition as against respondent no.1 was not
pressed.
4. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed the written
statement and contended that the negligence was on the
part of the rider of the motorcycle and the compensation
claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in
law. It was contended by respondent No.2 that the vehicle
was owned by respondent No.3 and insured by respondent
No.4 and therefore the liability has to be fastened upon
the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 contended that
there were violations of the terms and conditions of the
policy and therefore, it be exonerated from the liability.
5. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the
petitioner was examined as PW.1; the Doctor, who
assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
to P12 were marked. The copy of the insurance policy was
marked as Ex.R1.
6. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.2,49,254/- under the different heads
as below:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and suffering. Rs.15,000/-
2. Food and Nourishment, Rs.10,000/-
conveyance and attendant
charges.
3. Medical expenses and future Rs.95,954/-
medical expenses.
4. Loss of income during the period Rs.7,000/-
of treatment.
5. Loss of future earnings. Rs.1,11,300/-
6. Loss of amenities. Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.2,49,254/-
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard arguments for both the sides.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner had suffered various fractures
and had suffered the disability of 25% as stated by PW.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
However, the Tribunal took the disability at 10%, which is
on the lower side. He also submits that the petitioner had
an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal has
taken a notional income of Rs.13,250/- per month, which
is on the lower side. Therefore, he prays for re-assessment
of the compensation amount.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4 would submit that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no
need for enhancement of the compensation.
11. It is evident that the scope of this appeal is only
in respect of quantum of compensation. The factum of the
accident and the coverage of the insurance policy issued
by the respondent No.4, is not in dispute.
12. The wound certificate issued by Raichur
Institute of Medical Sciences, Raichur at Ex.P5 mentioned
that there was open fracture of the right knee; CLW over
the right leg; abrasion over occipital area of scalp;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
punctured wound over anterior aspect of right leg; and
tenderness over right hand. The discharge summary at
Ex.P7 shows that there was fracture of Vth-metatarsal of
right hand; fracture of both bones of right leg; fracture of
lateral condyle of femur with fracture of patella and tibia.
It was treated by external fixators, K-wire fixation, etc..
He was inpatient from 09.12.2020 to 12.12.2020. The
PW.2 states that on account of injuries suffered, the
petitioner has disability of 25% of the whole body. His
testimony and the disability certificate at Ex.P10 do not
mention the disability to the limb. However, the evidence
is elaborate and describes the nature of the difficulties
faced by the petitioner. In his opinion, he states that there
is evidence of fracture of neck of V-metatarsal with
malunion and fracture of the upper 1/3rd of the shaft of
right tibia with large gap with step present and there is a
malunion of the upper 1/3rd of the right fibula and non-
malunion of right tibia.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
13. It is pertinent a note that the petitioner aged
about 65 years had suffered the above injuries. The
Tribunal, though do not discuss much as to how the
functional disability is 10%, opined that functional
disability is 10% and calculated the compensation.
14. On careful perusal of the above material on
record, the functional disability of 10% assessed by the
Tribunal do not require any modification.
15. So far as the notional income is concerned, the
guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of
settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalath prescribe
notional income of Rs.13,750/- for the year 2020. In
umpteen number of judgments by this Court held that the
guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity
with the wages fixed under the minimum Wages Act and
therefore they can be adopted as the notional income and
the same is taken Rs.13,750/-. Hence, the loss of future
income on account of disability is calculated as
Rs.1,15,500/- (13750 x 12 x 10% x 7).
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
16. Consequently, holding that the petitioner was
unable to resume his work at least for a period of 3
months, loss of income during laid up period is calculated
as Rs.41,250/- (13,750/- x 3).
17. The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.15,000/-
under the head of pain and suffering, which is on the lower
side. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation
under the head pain and suffering is enhanced to
Rs.45,000/-.
18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities in life, which is
required to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
19. The compensation awarded under the
remaining heads do not require any enhancement.
20. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and suffering. Rs.45,000/-
2. Food and Nourishment, Rs.10,000/-
conveyance and attendant
charges.
3. Medical expenses and future Rs.95,954/-
medical expenses.
4. Loss of income during the period Rs.41,250/-
of treatment.
5. Loss of future earnings. Rs.1,15,500/-
6. Loss of amenities. Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.3,37,704/-
Less the amount awarded by the Rs.2,49,254/-
Tribunal
Enhancement Rs.88,450/-
21. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed
and pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a
sum of Rs.88,450/- in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
along with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till its deposit.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1884
(iii) The respondent No.4-Insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation
amount within a period of six weeks from
the date of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands
unaltered.
(v) The Registry to send back the Trial Court
Records to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SDU
CT: AK
