Ravikumar Vs Doddayya S. and Anr.

SRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O M. SUGAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: CAR DRIVER, RESIDENCE OF H.NO. A/59, NEW YADLAPUR ANJINAYYA, YADALAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA & DISTRICT: RAICHUR.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SMT. PATIL SHANTABAI SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. DODDAYYA S. S/O SHANTAYYA, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION : OWNER OF LORRY, BEARING NO. KA-32/D-5529, RESIDENCE OF H.NO. 7-30/6, YADGIRI MAIN ROAD, BIYA BABNI AREA WADI, TALUKA : CHITTAPUR, DISTRICT : KALABURAGI – 585 225.

¶18

THE GENERAL MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PLOT NO. 3 & 9, TS NO. 52, WARD NO. 16, 1^ST FLOOR, SPL COMPLEX, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BELLARI – 583 101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI ADV. FOR R2; V/O DATED: 04.03.2025; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2023, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC & MACT AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.306/2022 AND PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND

¶26

HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶29

Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation

¶30

awarded by the Tribunal and seeking enhancement of the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

¶31

The accident in question involving a lorry bearing registration No.KA-32-D-5559, on 28.01.2022, which

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

resulted in appellant sustaining injuries and the said vehicle being insured with respondent No.2 is not in dispute. According to the appellant/claimant, accident resulted in amputation of his left leg above knee and injuries to right hand, head and other parts of the body.

¶35

Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal was pleased to award total compensation of Rs.8,11,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization under following heads:

¶36

Sl. No.	Heads	Award by the Tribunal (Amount in Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering	20,000/-
2.	Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	15,000/-
3.	Medical expenses and future medical expenses	14,815/-
4.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	10,000/-
5.	Loss of Future earnings	7,41,150/-
6.	Loss of amenities	10,000/-
	Total	8,10,965/-
	Rounded off	8,11,000/-

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant having sustained amputation of leg above knee, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the extent of disability at 27% and also not considering the future prospects. It is also contended that compensation awarded under other heads namely, pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of income during the period of treatment and loss of amenities are also on the lower side. Therefore, sought to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by allowing the appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurnace Company contended that as per the revised notional income chart, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.14,750/- per month as the income of the claimant, whereas the income taken is Rs.15,250/- per month, which is on a higher side. She further contended that PW.2Doctor, has opined that the appellant has sustained permanent disability of 80% to the whole body and therefore, the Tribunal has taken disability at 27%, which is

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

just and proper. Accordingly, she sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

According to the appellant, he was a driver by profession and earning Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- per month at the time of accident. However, the Tribunal in the absence of material evidence and taking into consideration the age of the appellant, and also considering the notional income chart formulated by the KSLSA, Bengaluru, quantified the notional income of the appellant as Rs.15,250/- per month.

¶45

We find that to substantiate the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/per month as a car driver, no convincing evidence is placed on record. The accident took place on 28.01.2022. As per revised notional income chart, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.14,750/- as the monthly income of the appellant. Considering that the appellant has sustained amputation of leg above knee, which is not in dispute, we are of the considered view that 27% disability assessed in respect of the whole body was not proper. It is just and proper to take

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the disability to the whole body at 60%, taking into consideration Schedule-I of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

¶49

The appellant was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘15’. Considering that the appellant sustained 60% disability to the whole body on account of amputation of leg above knee, it is just and proper to add 40% of the income towards future prospects.

¶50

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the appellant, the compensation awarded under the said head is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-.

¶51

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/towards food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. The same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶52

The appellant has produced 27 bills marked as Ex.P14 amounting to Rs.4,815/-. The Tribunal has quantified

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the sum towards medical expenses and future medical expenses at Rs.14,815/- by awarding sum of Rs.10,000/towards further treatment. The same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.

¶56

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/towards loss of income during the period of treatment. As per the discharge summary, the appellant was in-patient for 39 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, we quantify loss of income during the period of treatment for three months and income having been taken at Rs.14,750/per month, the loss of income during the period of treatment would workout to Rs.44,250/- (14,750 X3), we round off the said amount to Rs.45,000/-.

¶57

The sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, considering the overall facts and circumstances.

¶58

Having added 40% of the income towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.5,900/-, the loss of future income per month is Rs.20,650/-, taking into consideration

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the disability to the extent of 60% and ‘15’ being the multiplier applicable to age of the appellant, the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.22,30,200/(14,750+5,900=20,650 X 12 X 60/100 X 15) towards loss of future earnings. The appellant is therefore, entitled for a total compensation of Rs.24,40,200/- under the following heads:

¶62

Sl. No.	Heads	Award by this Court (Amount In Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering	75,000/-
2.	Food and Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	40,000/-
3.	Medical expenses and future medical expenses	25,000/-
4.	Loss of income during the period of treatment	45,000/-
5.	Loss of Future earnings	22,30,200/-
6.	Loss of amenities	25,000/-
	Total	24,40,200/-
	Less: Award by the Tribunal	8,11,000/-
	Total enhancement	16,29,200/-

¶63

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2885-DB MFA No. 201187 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶69

ii. The appellant/claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.24,40,200/- as against Rs.8,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶70

iii. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by 2^nd respondent within two months, failing which the amount shall carry default interest at 9% per annum.

¶71

iv. The rest of the Order passed by the Tribunal shall be intact.

¶72

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶73

Sd/(K S HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶74

AT,TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: NI

Ravikumar v. Doddayya S. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar v. Doddayya S. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Asadulla Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Ravi S/O Nagshetty Naubade Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumant S/O Gurudappa and Ors. Vs the State through Cpi Maski

Shivkumar Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Fakeerappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sunil Pathak Vs Smt. Shilpa Sharma, IAS