Partly allowed¶65

Jaishree @ Jayamma v. Veeresh Reddy and Anr.

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025MFA/201287/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident compensation enhancement; functional disability versus whole-body disability percentage; KSLSA Lok-Adalat notional income Rs.13,750 for 2020; fracture of base of left fourth finger with k-wiring and malunion; multiplier 12 x 18; Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act appeal; MACT Bidar MVC No.255/2020; New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; interest 6% p.a.; Karnataka High Court Kalaburagi Bench; NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229.

What did the court decide?

Enhancement of Rs.1,61,100/- over the Tribunal's award, payable with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit; respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) directed to deposit the compensation within six weeks; rest of the Tribunal's order stands unaltered. ¶65

Jaishree @ Jayamma Vs Veeresh Reddy and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Assessment of the petitioner's disability - whether the disability certified at Ex.P3 (21% per PW.2) pertains to the whole body or only to the limb, and what functional disability should be adopted. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The petitioner had suffered fracture of the base of the 4th finger of the left hand and underwent close reduction and internal fixation with k-wiring.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The disability at Ex.P3 would not show that the said disability is to the whole body.

¶49

Key takeaways

On careful assessment of the disability as found from Ex.P3, the said disability is to the limb.ratio¶50
PW.2 could not have given any disability in respect of the whole body as he was unaware of the avocation of the petitioner.ratio¶50
Considering that the petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident, the functional disability is considered at 8%.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Enhancement of motor-accident compensation - High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench (C M Joshi J), MFA No.201287 of 2022 (MV-I) under S.173(1) Motor Vehicles Act, decided 08.04.2025. Claimant (aged about 19, coolie) injured on 16.02.2020 when vehicle KA-56/2621 dashed the vehicle (KA-39/9552) in which she was travelling; fracture of base of left 4th finger, 11 days' inpatient treatment, close reduction and internal fixation with k-wiring, malunion with deformity. The Tribunal (II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Bidar) had awarded Rs.1,75,845/- in MVC No.255/2020 (dated 05.02.2022). Holdings: the disability shown at Ex.P3 (21% per PW.2) is to the limb, not the whole body; PW.2, being unaware of the claimant's avocation, could not assess whole-body disability; functional disability fixed at 8% considering her age; adopting the KSLSA notional income of Rs.13,750/- for 2020 - loss of future income Rs.2,37,600/- (13,750 x 12 x 18 x 8%), laid-up loss Rs.27,500/- (13,750 x 2), loss of amenities raised to Rs.40,000/-; remaining heads unchanged. Revised total Rs.3,36,945/-; enhancement of Rs.1,61,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit; respondent No.2-insurer (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) to deposit within six weeks; appeal allowed in part; rest of the Tribunal's order unaltered.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201287 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JAISHREE @ JAYAMMA D/O BHIMSHAH, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, NOW NIL, R/O VILLAGE BENAKPALLI, BASHIRPUR, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR, NOW AT YALLALING COLONY, NAUBAD, BIDAR-585 401.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

VEERESH REDDY S/O MANIKAPPA REDDY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 1/53, YERBAGH, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR, (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN. NO. KA-56/2621).

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PADMINI KUNJA COMPLEX, UDGIR ROAD, BIDAR-585 401.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2; V/O DTD. 10.08.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.02.2022 PASSED BY THE 2^ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDE AND JMFC - BIDAR AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BIDAR IN MVC NO. 255/2020.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

¶24

Though the matter is slated for admission, by

¶25

consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal and heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.02.2022 in MVC No.255/2020 by the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Bidar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶28

3. The short point that arises regarding disability

¶29

of the petitioner and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶30

The admitted facts are that on 16.02.2020 at about 9:00 a.m. while petitioner was going to coolie work for cutting sugarcane in vehicle bearing No.KA-39/9552, another vehicle bearing No.KA-56/2621 came from opposite side and dashed to the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. Due to the said accident, the petitioner suffering injuries to her left hand and the 4^th finger. After the accident, the petitioner was admitted to the Hospital at Manna-E-Khelli and thereafter she was shifted to Government Hospital, Bidar. She took treatment as inpatient till 27.02.2020. A case was registered by the concerned jurisdictional police station in Crime No.3/2020 against the offending vehicle and the driver was prosecuted. Contending that petitioner was aged about 19 years, working as coolie, earning

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶32

Rs.15,000/- per month, she filed claim petition before the Tribunal for adequate compensation.

¶33

The respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the claim petition contending that the driver of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. Inter alia they also contended that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law and they denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner.

¶34

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. No evidence led on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶36

7. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal has

¶37

awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,845/- under different

¶38

heads as below:

¶39

Sl.No.	Heads	Compensation
1.	Loss of future income	Rs.1,08,000/-
2.	Pain and suffering	Rs.20,000/-
3.	Medical Expenses	Rs.1,845/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.10,000/-
5.	Food and nourishment, conveyance & attendant charges	Rs.10,000/-
6.	Loss of future amenity	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs.1,75,845/-

¶40

Being aggrieved by the quantum of

¶41

compensation, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerappellant would submit that the petitioner is aged about 19 years and working as coolie and she is suffering injury to her left hand and therefore, her earning capacity has been impaired. It is pointed out that the 4^th finger of left hand has been disfigured, resulting in disability as stated by PW.2. He states that there is 21% disability to the

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶44

whole body and therefore there is need for reassessment

¶45

of compensation.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submits that the fracture of 4^th finger of left hand cannot in any way result in disability of 21%. The testimony of PW.2 cannot be accepted. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and there is no need for any enhancement.

¶47

A careful perusal of the material available on record would show that the petitioner was admitted to the Hospital for 11 days and the wound certificate would show that she had suffered fracture of base 4^th finger of left hand and she underwent close reduction and internal fixation with k-wiring. PW.2 states that the injury has resulted in malunion of fracture and there is deformity. He states that deformity resulted in 10% disability and the remaining aspects contribute for 11% and therefore, he states that, the disability is 21%. The disability at Ex.P3

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶49

would not show that the said disability is to the whole body.

¶50

On careful assessment of disability as may be found from Ex.P3, the said disability is to the limb. Obviously the PW.2 could not have given any disability in respect of whole body as he was unaware of the avocation of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner was aged about 19 years at the time of accident, the functional disability is considered at 8%.

¶51

So far as income is concerned, the guidelines issued by KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.13,750/- for the year 2020. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of future income on account of disability is calculated as Rs.13,750/- x 12 x 18 x 8% = Rs.2,37,600/-.

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶53

Consequently, the compensation under the

¶54

head of loss of income during laid up is assessed at Rs.13,750/- x 2 = Rs.27,500/-.

¶55

In view of the fact that she is aged about 19

¶56

years and there appears some malunion, the compensation under the head of loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.

¶57

The compensation awarded under the

¶58

remaining heads do not require any enhancement.

¶59

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a total

¶60

compensation under the following heads:

¶61

Sl.No.	Heads	Compensation
1.	Loss of future income	Rs.2,37,600/-
2.	Pain and suffering	Rs.20,000/-
3.	Medical Expenses	Rs.1,845/-
4.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.27,500/-
5.	Food and nourishment, conveyance & attendant charges	Rs.10,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	Rs.40,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,36,945/-
Less t	he amount awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.1,75,845/-
	Enhancement	Rs.1,61,100/-

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2229 MFA No. 201287 of 2022

¶63

In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in-part. Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶66

(ii) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a

¶67

sum of Rs.1,61,100/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

¶68

(iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance company is

¶69

directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶70

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands

¶71

unaltered.

¶72

SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44 CT: AK

Jaishree @ Jayamma v. Veeresh Reddy and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaishree @ Jayamma v. Veeresh Reddy 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

Arjun@ Somu S/O Ramappa Bandiwaddar Vs Santosha S/O Mallappa Ballolli and Ors.

The Divisional Manager Vs Umesh S/O Manohar Tippankar

Paramma@ Parvati W/O Ghaleppa Vs Ningappa and Anr.

Shrishail Vs Shankar and Anr.

Azim Vs Veershetty and Anr.

Md. Rafi @ Raffiuddin Vs Rajshekar and Anr.