Prabhakar R T Vs the United India Ins. Co. Ltd.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8466 OF 2022(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRABHAKAR R. T. S/O. RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SKANDA NAGARA KODIGEHALLI, KODIGEHALLI POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 091

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI NAGARAJA M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CALIMS HUB 5^TH AND 6^TH FLOOR KRUSHIBHAVAN BENGALURU-56002 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶14

SMT. M. SUGUNA D/W/O. BALAJI R. NO.37, (5/2/47), MURUGAN NAGAR RAMAN NAGAR POST

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

METTUR TALUK SALEM DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-633 403

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI BHUVAN B. M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANUP SEETHRAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED 18/04/2023, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.10.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.2718/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.10.2022 passed by the XXIII Addl.C.M.M.. & Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.2718/2020 seeking enhancement of compensation and also fastening of the entire liability on the respondent.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.08.2020, at about 5.10 to 5.15 p.m, at Laggere ring road, the claimant met with an accident while crossing the road due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No.TN-93-5223. As a result he sustained grievous injuries; he has suffered permanent disability resulting in loss of his earning capacity. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation.

¶30

The respondent No.1 was the insurer and respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending motorcycle. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioner and also denied its liability to pay the compensation due to breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶35

Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶36

The claimant to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 15 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-18. Respondents have not lead any oral or documentary evidence.

¶37

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the claimant as well as the driver of the offending vehicle in ratio of 20% and 80% and assessed the income of the Claimant at Rs.14,500/- per month; disability as 13% to the whole body and applied multiplier as '14', considering the age as 43 years and by the impugned judgment awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	45,000
Medical expenses	35,503
Loss of income during laid up period	14,500
Loss of future income	3,16,380
Loss of future amenities and happiness	17,000
Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges	17,000
Future medical expesnes	10,000
Total	4,55,683

¶41

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶42

9. The fact of the accident and injuries sustained by

¶43

the claimant are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to re-visit on the findings of the Tribunal.

¶44

10. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment observed that the claimant was crossing the road unmindfully w ithout paying attention to the movement of vehicles, and therefore, attributed 20% contributory negligence to him for causing

¶45

the accident in question. It is true that the spot of the accident was not a demarcated place for crossing the road.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

However, any alleged negligence on the part of the claimant had to be proved by Respondent No. 2. The respondents did not examine any eyewitnesses or the driver of the lorry. Consequently, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim. During the cross-examination of PW-1, it was suggested that he was crossing the road carelessly that caused the accident and it was denied by PW1. Other than this suggestion, nothing was brought forth to show that the claimant was negligent. Therefore, the Tribunal’s findings that the claimant was 20% responsible for causing the accident is not supported by any material on record.

¶49

11. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments:

¶50

i. New India Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. G.Madhumathi and others¹

¶51

ii. Saroj Devi and others vs. Narendra Singh and others²

¶52

1 2022 ACJ 712

¶53

2 2023 ACJ 2026

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

12. I n both the aforementioned judgments, the

¶58

findings were given based on the specific facts of those cases and, therefore, cannot be considered as judicial precedent. In the case of Koosappa Poojari vs. K. Sadabba and others³ , the finding was rendered on the basis of the facts of that particular case. However, in the present appeal, neither the charge sheet nor the evidence contains any admission in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding on this point is erroneous.

¶59

13. Th e primary contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and consequently, the amount of compensation awarded is also inadequate.

¶60

14. I t is true that PW-2 has assessed the disability to the extent of 16.33% of the whole body. The disability assessed by Doctor PW-2 is a physical disability. Considering the nature of the work, the age, and the occupation of the

¶61

3 2004 ACJ 2102

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

claimant, the Tribunal has taken the disability as 13%. Even if this is reconsidered, the difference would only be marginal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said findings.

¶65

15. T he claimant sustained a fracture of the right proximal humerus. He underwent surgery and was treated as an in-patient for a period of 12 days. According to PW-2, he continues to suffer from restrictions in the movement of the right hand. In view of this, the amount of compensation awarded under the head 'loss of income during the laid-up period' is inadequate and requires enhancement. For at least

¶66

a period of three to four months, might not be able to perform any work. Similarly, the compensation awarded under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'attendant charges,' and 'future medical expenses' are on the lower side and also requires enhancement.

¶67

For the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is entitled to following amount of compensation :

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	45,000
Medical expenses	35,500
Attendant expenses, special diet and	25,000
conveyance charges
Loss of income during laid up period	58,000
(Rs.14,500x4)
Loss of income due to permanent disability	3,16,680
Rs. 14,500 x 12 x 14 X13%
Loss of amenities	50,000
Future medical expenses	30,000
Total	5,60,180
Amount awarded by the Tribunal	4,55,683
Enhancement-	1,04,497
Rounded off -	Rs.1,05,000/-

¶71

The claimant is also entitled to Rs. 91,136/-, which was deducted by the Tribunal on the ground that he had contributed 20% for causing the accident in question.

¶72

The claimant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition until the date of realization, on the enhanced amount of compensation as well as on the amount of compensation of 20% deducted on account of his contributory negligence.

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation.

¶77

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i) The Appeal is allowed in part .

¶80

ii) The judgment and award dated 21.10.2022, passed by the XXIII Addl.Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in MVC No.2718/2020 stands modified;

¶81

iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition until its realization. The amount awarded towards future medical expenses, i.e., Rs. 30,000/-, shall not carry any interest.

¶82

iv) Claimant is also entitled to Rs.91,136/with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization, which was deducted towards contributory negligence of claimant for causing the accident in question.

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:43094 MFA No. 8466 of 2022

¶84