Karnataka High Court
Mallamma vs The Managing Director on 23 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
MFA No. 203792 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 203497 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203792 OF 2025 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203497 OF 2025
IN MFA.NO:203792/2025
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC,
THROUGH THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE SRTC BUS STATION,
MAHABUBNAGAR - 509 001.
Digitally signed
...APPELLANT
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI (BY SRI MOHD NAZEERUDDIN CHENGTA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
MALLAMMA
W/O BUDUGULLA NAGAPPA
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: EX LABOUR,
R/O: NO.3-20, PEDRIPHAD VILLAGE,
MANDAL MADDUR,
DIST: MEHABOOBNAGAR, TELANGANA - 509 411.
NOW AT WATER OVERHEAD TANK OM NAGAR,
SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B. ALI MOHAMMED, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
MFA No. 203792 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 203497 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.
173(1) OF THE MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN MVC NO.1120/2024 PASSED DATED 24-04-2025
AND BY IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., & ADDITIONAL MACT, AT KALABURAGI AND
RECALL THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24-04-2025
PASSED IN MVC NO.1120/2024 BY IN THE COURT OF II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, AT KALABURAGI AND EXONERATE THE
APPELLANT OF ITS LIABILITY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA.NO:203497/2025
BETWEEN:
MALLAMMA
W/O BUDUGULLA NAGAPPA
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: EX LABOUR,
R/O: NO.3-20, PEDRIPHAD VILLAGE,
MANDAL MADDUR,
DIST: MEHABOOBNAGAR, TELANGANA - 509 411.
NOW AT WATER OVERHEAD TANK OM NAGAR,
SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 104.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B. ALI MOHAMMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC,
THROUGH THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE SRTC BUS STATION,
MAHABUBNAGAR - 509 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MOHD. NAZEERUDDIN CHENGTA, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
MFA No. 203792 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 203497 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.
173(1) OF THE MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN MVC NO.1120/2024 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, AT KALABURAGI
AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
24.04.2025 CAUSED IN MVC NO.1120/2024 ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT,
KALABURAGI MAY BE MODIFIED BY GRANTING
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION AND
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AS
PRAYED WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
MFA No.203792/2025 is filed by the APSRTC and MFA
No.203497/2025 is filed by the claimant, challenging the
judgment and award dated 24.04.2025 passed in MVC No.
1120/2024 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
Additional MACT, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as
'tribunal'). Both these appeals are on the quantum of
compensation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The contention of the Managing Director,
APSRTC in their appeal is that the tribunal has taken
100% disability, even though the doctor has deposed
disability to whole body at 70%. He would also contend
that tribunal erred in considering future prospects and that
1/3rd disability should have been considered.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the claimant in his appeal would contend
that the tribunal committed an error in awarding lesser
compensation under the head of pain and suffering and
also under the head of loss of amenities. Further, no
compensation has been awarded towards future attendant
charges, though the injured is suffering from Paraplegia
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
and requires an attendant throughout his life. Hence, the
award requires interference by this Court.
5. Having heard both learned counsel, the
following points arise for consideration of this Court:
1. Whether the tribunal committed an error in
considering 100% disability,even though the
doctor has deposed that the disability at 70%?
2. Whether the tribunal has committed an error in
not awarding just and reasonable compensation?
Whether the award requires interference by this
Court?
3. What order?
6. Point no.1: The main contention of the
APSRTC is that though the doctor, who was examined
before the tribunal, deposed that the disability is 70% to
the whole body and the tribunal committed an error in
taking the disability as 100%.
7. This contention cannot be accepted for the
reason that the claimant is suffering from Paraplegia. The
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
evidence of the doctor is very clear that due to fracture of
D1 to D5 and C6 and C7, the claimant is suffering from
Paraplegia and has lost control over both lower limbs as
well as on the stomach. When such evidence is given and
also when suggestion was made, it is categorically
deposed that chances of recovery are rare and the
claimant is unable to do any kind of work, the contention
of the APSRTC that the tribunal erred in taking disability at
100% is erroneous cannot be accepted. The Court has to
take note of the functional disability of the person. When a
person is unable to do any work and is permanently
suffering from Paraplegia, having lost control over the
lower limbs, it cannot be expected that he can do any
work in future. Therefore, in such a case, the contention of
the appellant that the tribunal committed an error cannot
be accepted. In a case of Paraplegia, the question of
recovery does not arise. When particularly the fracture of
the D1 to D5 and C6 and C7 is a permanent disability,
under the circumstances we do not find any force in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
contention of the counsel appearing for the APSRTC. There
is no infirmity in considering the 100% disability and
hence, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
8. Point No.2: The learned counsel appearing for
the claimant contended that the tribunal committed an
error in awarding compensation of `50,000/- under the
head of pain and suffering. There is force in the contention
of the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant is
aged about 33 years and suffered grievous injuries such as
spinal injuries and also underwent hospitalization for 26
days. When such being the case, it is appropriate to
enhance the same to `2,00,000/- as against `50,000/-.
9. The other contention of the learned counsel is
that only `50,000/- has been awarded under the head of
loss of amenities. Having considered that the claimant is
aged about 33 years, is permanently disabled and has to
live with 100% functional disability for the rest of life and
also considering the discomfort, it is appropriate to
enhance the same to `2,00,000/- as against `50,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
10. Now, coming to the aspect of non-awarding of
any compensation towards attendant charges, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Jitendran V. The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2022) 15 SCC
620, wherein for 69% disability, the Hon'ble Apex Court
took disability at 100%. In that case of Paraplegia, Hon'ble
Apex Court awarded attendant charges at `5,000/- per
month, which comes to `60,000/- per annum. Having
considered the multiplier of 18, additional compensation
under this head came to `10,80,000/-. However, in this
case, having considered the multiplier of 16, since the
claimant is aged 33 years, it comes to `9,60,000/-.
11. Further, no compensation has been awarded
towards future medical expenses by the tribunal. In
Jitendran (supra) case, for 69% disability with cognitive
impairment, the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded `3,00,000/-
considering recurring medical treatment. In the case on
hand also, the claimant is suffering from paraplegia with
100% disability and has to undergo recurring medical
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
treatment throughout his life. Hence, it is appropriate to
award `3,00,000/- towards future medical expenses.
Compensation under all other heads are undisputed.
However, he is not entitled for any compensation under
the head of loss of income during laid up period, in view of
taking disability at 100%.
12. Accordingly, in all, the claimant is entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.57,14,000/-. Hence, we
answer the point no.2 partly in affirmative.
13. Compensation re-assessed by this Court is as
follows:
Heads Award of tribunal Award of this
Court
Loss of future Rs.40,32,000/- Rs.40,32,000/-
income
Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Loss of income Rs.20,000/- Nil
during laid up period
Attendant charges, Rs.50,000/- Rs.9,60,000/-
transportation, and
miscellaneous
expenses
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
and nutritional food
Medical bills Rs.22,000/- Rs.22,000/-
Future medical Nil Rs.3,00,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.42,24,000/- Rs.57,14,000/-
14. In view of the discussions made above, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA No.203792/2025 filed by the APSRTC
is dismissed and MFA No.203497/2025
filed by the claimant is allowed in part by
modifying the judgment and award dated
24.04.2025 passed in MVC No. 1120/2024
by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
and Additional MACT, Kalaburagi by
enhancing the compensation to
Rs.57,14,000/- as against Rs.42,24,000/-.
ii) The amount in deposit shall be
transmitted to tribunal forthwith.
iii) Entire compensation amount shall be
deposited along with interest at the rate
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5724-DB
HC-KAR
of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization by the APSRTC
before the concerned tribunal within a
period of six weeks from this order.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:NI
