Karnataka High Court

Laxmi vs Nagappa And Anr on 23 October, 2025

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                 -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB
                                                        MFA No. 202568 of 2023


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                         KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                              PRESENT
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
                                                 AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY


                           MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202568 OF 2023 (MV-I)


                      BETWEEN:

                            LAXMI
                            W/O TIMMAYYA,
                            AGE: 43 YEARS,
                            OCC: COOLIE,
                            R/OF: POST AKALAKUMPE,
                            TALUKA: DEODURGA,
                            DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
                            NOW AT RESIDENT IN LBS NAGAR,
Digitally signed by         RAICHUR - 584 101.
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ                                                              ...APPELLANT
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              (BY SRI BASAVARAJ R.MATH, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA

                      AND:

                      1.    NAGAPPA
                            S/O NINGAPPA PUJARI,
                            AGE: MAJOR,
                            OCC: RIDER CUM OWNER OF
                            MOTORCYCLE BRG. NO KA-36/EJ-0391,
                            NARALABANDA, TALUKA: MANVI,
                            DISTRICT : RAICHUR - 584 123.
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB
                                     MFA No. 202568 of 2023


HC-KAR




2.   THE GENERAL MANAGER,
     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
     COMPANY LIMITED,
     OPP: VISHAL MARTK,
     LINGASUGUR ROAD,
     RAICHUR - 584 101.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

V/O DATED 12.03.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)


      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2022 PASSED BY PRL.

DISTRICT    AND   SESSIONS   JUDGE    AND   MEMBER,   MACT,

RAICHUR IN MVC NO.94/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

AND EQUITY.


      THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
           AND
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY
                             -3-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB
                                   MFA No. 202568 of 2023


HC-KAR




                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

This appeal is by the claimant filed under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by

the judgment and award dated 17.10.2022 passed by the

Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur in

MVC No.94/2021 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that, on 07.09.2020 at about 4.00 p.m.,

the injured/petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on

Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-36/ER-8572 driven by one

Mr. Amaresh, when they came near Sirwar Navalkal Main

road, respondent No.1 being the rider of Motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-36/EJ-0391 came in high speed, rash

and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's

vehicle and thereby caused the accident. As a result of

which, petitioner sustained severe injuries leading to her

hospitalization to RIMS Hospital, Raichur and thereafter

she was shifted to NIMHANS and Sparsha Hospital at

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

Bengaluru for higher treatment and she has been

subjected for surgical and oral treatment and finally she

was discharged on 19.09.2020 by spending huge amount.

Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal

seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the

road traffic accident.

3. On service of summons, respondent Nos.1 and

2 appeared. Respondent No.2 filed written statement

denying the entire averments made in the claim petition.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded

the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove the case,

examined himself as PW-1 besides examining the doctor

as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely, Ex.P1 to

Ex.P22. On behalf of respondents, three witnesses are

examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked three documents

as Exs.R.1 to 3.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

5. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on

account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of the

offending vehicle the accident took place and the claimant

sustained injuries. The Tribunal, upon considering the oral

and documentary evidence placed before it, held that the

claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.30,02,500/-

along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

Insurance company to deposit the compensation amount

along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been

filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised

the following contentions:

a) Firstly, due to the accident the claimant has

suffered grievous injuries. The claimant is completely

bedridden and she unable to walk and do her day-to-day

work. She has examined the doctor as P.W.2, who

deposed that the claimant has suffered disability of 91%

to the whole body. He further contended that due to

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

permanent disability, she is unable to move from the bed

and she required the help of an attainder till her last

breath. He further submits that no compensation is

awarded under that head. Looking to the injuries suffered

by the claimant, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at

91% is on the lower side and 100% disability has to be

taken into consideration looking to the injuries suffered by

the claimant.

b) Lastly, he has contended that in view of

judgment of Hon'ble Apex in the case of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi And Others [AIR

2017 SC 5157], the Tribunal has not added 25% to the

income of the claimant towards future prospects having

regard to the age of the claimant. Hence, he sought for

enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, Sri Mohd. Abdul Quayum,

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance

Company contend that the claimant has examined the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

doctor as P.W.2. In his evidence, he has deposed that the

claimant has suffered 91% disability to the whole body.

Considering the evidence of doctor, the Tribunal has

rightly assessed whole body at 91%. He further

contended that the doctor has deposed that claimant is

required an Attainder throughout her life to do her day-to-

day work and no medical records have been produced to

establish the said contention. Therefore, the Tribunal

rightly not awarded any compensation under that head.

8. Lastly, he has contended that considering the

injuries suffered by the claimant, evidence of doctor and

medical evidence, the overall compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is just and reasonable and sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties,

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and also

the appeal papers.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

10. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

suffered injury in a road traffic accident occurred on

07.09.2020 due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of

the offending motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-36/EJ-0391.

It is also not in dispute that due to the above accident, the

claimant has suffered the following injuries:

"1) Generalised tenderness over abdomen

2) Loss of sensation of both lower limb

3) Restriction of movement of both lower

limbs."

11. The claimant has examined the doctor as P.W.2

who treated her. We have gone through the records and

evidence of the doctor. The disability assessed by the

doctor is at 91% to the whole body. The claimant has

produced photographs which are marked as Exs.P.13 to 19

to show that due to accidental injury, the claimant is

unable to walk and do her day-to-day work and she is

unable to even move without the support of an attainder

as she is bedridden. Considering this material available on

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

record, the medical records, disability certificate and

evidence of the doctor, the disability has to be assessed at

100%. The Tribunal in the absence of proof of income has

assessed monthly income of the claimant at Rs.13,750/-

p.m., which is just and proper and no interference is called

by this Court.

12. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% of the

income has to be added towards loss of future income.

The age of the claimant is 40 years. The multiplier

applicable to the age group of the claimant is '15'. On re-

determination and re-assessment, the claimant is entitled

to a sum of Rs.24,75,000/- (Rs.13,750*12*15*100%)

under the head 'loss of future income'.

13. Further, due to the accidental injury, the

claimant has suffered 100% disability and she is unable to

move from the bed and therefore she requires one

attainder for her support till her last breath. Considering

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

the evidence of doctor and injury suffered by the claimant,

it would meet the ends of justice if a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

is awarded towards 'future attainder charges'. The

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads

are just and reasonable.

14. On re-assessment and re-determination, the

computation of compensation is as under:

            Description                       By this Court

            Pain and suffering                Rs.1,00,000/-

            Loss of Joy and
                                              Rs.1,00,000/-
            Pleasure

            Medical attendant's,
            conveyance and                      Rs.50,000/-
            nourishment expenses

            Loss of future
                                             Rs.24,75,000/-
            income/earnings

            Medical expenses
            (Past, Present and
                                              Rs.5,00,000/-
            future medical
            expenses)

            Future Attainder's
                                                 2,00,000/-
            charges

                               Total        Rs.34,25,000/-

15. In the result, we pass the following:

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:6216-DB

HC-KAR

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed in part.

b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.34,25,000/- as against Rs.30,02,500/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

d) The Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit entire compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.