Sri K Manohar Reddy Vs Sri Shaik Sabir — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri K Manohar Reddy Vs Sri Shaik Sabir — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals allowed-in-part; tribunal judgments and awards modified: K.Manohar Reddy (MFA.No.871/2024 / MVC.No.4372/2021) entitled to total compensation of Rs.40,000/- (against Rs.20,000/-) and minor K.Jaswanth Reddy (MFA.No.881/2024 / MVC.No.4373/2021) entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- (against Rs.1,45,000/-), each along with interest at 6% per annum; enhanced amounts to be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order and released by electronic transfer upon furnishing bank details/proper identification per the tribunal's terms; all other terms stipulated by the tribunal to stand intact.

Issue for consideration

Whether the claimants in both the cases (K.Manohar Reddy and minor K.Jaswanth Reddy) are entitled for any enhancement of compensation? If so, what amount?

Court's answer

Assessment of disability falls within the domain of the medical expert: where PW.2 (Orthopaedic Surgeon) opined 11% permanent disability to the whole body and the Insurance Company placed no contra material to contradict it, the tribunal could not substitute its own opinion (it had assessed disability at 10%).

Ratio / Principle

Applying the Supreme Court's slabs in Mallikarjun ((2014)14 SCC 396), for permanent disability above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body the compensation to be awarded is Rs.3,00,000/-; with disability taken at 11%, the minor claimant K.Jaswanth Reddy is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts and loss of amenities on account of permanent disability.

Key takeaways

The tribunal's heads of Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings of parents do not call for interference and are retained; accordingly the claimant-son's total compensation is enhanced to Rs.3,45,000/- as against Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the tribunal.ratio¶74
In the claimant-father's case, apart from Ex.P6 (wound certificate) and Ex.P7 (discharge summary), no piece of material was placed before the Court to show any financial expenditure, on which basis the tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- as global compensation.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims - Enhancement of compensation - Miscellaneous First Appeals under S.173(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by father (K.Manohar Reddy) and minor son (K.Jaswanth Reddy), claimants in MVC.Nos.4372/2021 and 4373/2021 (VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru), challenging awards of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,45,000/- dated 03.08.2023 as meagre - Accident of 06.01.2021 on Madanapalle-Palamaner road: Tavera car KA-53-B-8142 driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side dashed against auto rickshaw AP-03-TC-4040, injuring both claimants - Held (single Bench, Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.): (i) assessment of disability is the domain of the medical expert; where PW.2, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, opined 11% permanent disability to the whole body (32% to the left arm) and the insurer adduced no contra material, the tribunal could not substitute its own 10% assessment; (ii) applying Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014)14 SCC 396, disability above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body attracts Rs.3,00,000/-, so the minor's compensation for pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, discomfort and loss of amenities is fixed at Rs.3,00,000/-, with tribunal heads of Rs.15,000/- (conveyance, nourishment, attendant) and Rs.30,000/- (loss of earnings of parents) retained - total enhanced to Rs.3,45,000/-; (iii) father having produced no evidence of expenditure or disability beyond Ex.P6 wound certificate and Ex.P7 discharge summary, a marginal increase of Rs.20,000/- over the Rs.20,000/- global award is granted - total Rs.40,000/- - Interest at 6% p.a. on both; enhanced amounts payable by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. within four weeks, released by electronic transfer on furnishing bank details/proper identification; other tribunal terms intact - Appeals allowed-in-part.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.871 OF 2024 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.881 OF 2024 (MV-I) IN MFA.No.871/2024:

BETWEEN:

SRI K.MANOHAR REDDY S/O.K.VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS KANGANAM BANDA NIDIGUNTA POST PEDDPANAJANI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517 432

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI P.S.KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI SHAIK SABIR S/O.SHAIK KHLIFALS MAJOR R/AT NO.28, SHAHINSHA NAGAR KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR-563 101

THE MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18 KRISHI BHAVAN, 5^TH FLOOR OPP. TO HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 05.03.2025)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.4372/2021 BY VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.

IN MFA.NO.881/2024:

BETWEEN:

SRI K.JASWANTH REDDY S/O.K.MANOHAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI K.MANOHAR REDDY KANGANAM BANDA NIDIGUNTA POST PEDDAPANAJANI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517 432

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI P.S.KAILAS SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI SHAIK SABIR S/O.SHAIK KHLIFALS MAJOR R/AT NO.28, SHAHINSHA NAGAR KOALR TOWN KOLAR-563 101

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18 KRISHI BHAVAN, 5^TH FLOOR OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED V/O.DATED 04.03.2025)

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC.NO.4373/2021 BY VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU.

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

These appeals are preferred by the appellantsclaimants challenging the judgment and award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MVC.Nos.4372/2021 and 4373/2021 on the file of VIII Additional Judge and ACMM, MemberMACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the tribunal’). These appeals are founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal.

Though the matters are listed for admission, with consent of learned counsels for parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

Parties to the appeals shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 06.01.2021, the claimant in MVC.No.4372/2021

was going towards Chaithanya College by driving his auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-03-TC-4040 at 8:45 a.m. to drop the School children, wherein his son, who is the claimant in MVC.No.4373/2021 was also travelling, at that time, on Madanapalle-Palamaner road, the driver of Tavera Car bearing registration No.KA-53-B-8142 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the auto rickshaw driven by the claimant. Due to the said impact, both the father and the son sustained grievous injuries all over their body. Immediately, the father shifted to the Government Hospital, Palamaner and thereafter, he was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, wherein he took conservative treatment, whereas, the son was shifted to the Government Hospital, Palamaner and he was then referred to Government Hospital, Chittoor and having spent amount towards the treatment, the claimants filed claim petitions seeking compensation against the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

respondents, who are the owner of the offending vehicle

and the Insurance Company.

4.1 On service of notice, respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and was placed ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the claim of the claimants and hence, seeks dismissal of the claim petitions.

4.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsels for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC.No.4372/2021 and Rs.1,45,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in MVC.No.4373/2021 and directed the respondentInsurance Company to pay the compensation within sixty days.

4.3 Being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant-father in MVC.No.4372/2021 filed an appeal in MFA.No.871/2024 and the claimant-son in MVC.No.4373/2021 filed an appeal

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

in MFA.No.881/2024 before this Court seeking

enhancement of compensation.

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation in both the cases. The tribunal, without taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant-father namely, K.Manohar Reddy, has awarded only global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which is erroneous and the same requires to be enhanced.

5.1 It is further contended by learned counsel for appellants-claimants that in the case of the minor child K.Jaswanth Reddy, aged 14 years, the tribunal has grossly committed an error in not taking into consideration the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2014)14 SCC 396, whereby it has been held that if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, the compensation is to be awarded at Rs.3,00,000/- and if

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

it is upto 10%, the compensation is to be awarded at Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, it goes up on the basis of the disability. This aspect has been ignored by the tribunal in awarding compensation to the minor child. It is also contended by learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the Doctor has been examined in the case of the minor child as PW.2, who was opined the disability to an extent of 11% to the whole body by holding the permanent disability to an extent of 32% to the left arm. Therefore, the disability being more than 10% i.e. 11%, which is opined by the Doctor, the compensation ought to have been awarded at Rs.3,00,000/- as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra , which has not been done by the tribunal. Hence, he seeks enhancement of compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance

Company vehemently contends that in the case of the injuries sustained by the father, K.Manohar Reddy, there is absolutely no material placed on record by the claimant-

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

father to show any expenditures expended towards treatment of injuries. Admittedly, there is no disability and the Doctor has not been examined and no material is placed with regard to disability by way of any certificate, so also, any photographs. Even according to the wound certificate, which is produced at Ex.P6, it is shown as only lacerated wound and no material is placed by the claimant-father to depict having spent more amount for grant of compensation. Therefore, due to lack of production of any substantive piece of material before the Court, the tribunal is justified in awarding Rs.20,000/- as global compensation to the claimant-father.

6.1 In the case of the claimant-minor child, learned counsel sustains the judgment and award passed by the tribunal by contending that the Doctor-PW.2 is not the treated Doctor. He has examined the minor child after 01 year and 11 months. Therefore, the opinion expressed by the tribunal on the basis of materials placed and the evidence of the Doctor cannot be believed. The tribunal

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

assessed the disability to be 10% and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the judgement in the case of Mallikarjun stated supra . He sustains the same and seeks dismissal of the appeals.

Having heard learned counsel for appellantsclaimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the point that arises for concentration is that -

"Whether the claimants in both the cases are entitled for any enhancement of compensation? If so, what amount?"

IN MFA.No.871/2024 (MVC.No.4372/2021):

In the case of the claimant-father namely, K.Manohar Reddy, he sustained injuries in the accident. However, apart from producing the documents at Ex.P6wound certificate and Ex.P7-discharge summary, no piece of material is placed before the Court to show any financial expenditures expended by the claimant. Therefore, the tribunal awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

8.1 Taking into consideration the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident, which is not challenged or

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

disputed, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the claimant-father having approached this Court for having sustained lacerated wound and having spent his time before the Court seeking compensation, a marginal increase could be granted over and above the global compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, in additional to Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal, another sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded. In all, the claimant-father is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.40,000/- .

IN MFA.No.881/2024 (MVC.No.4373/2021):

In the case of the claimant-son namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy, apparently, the Doctor has been examined as PW.2, who has opined the permanent disability to an extent of 32% to the left arm and the disability of 11% to the whole body. It is no doubt true that PW.2 is a Doctor, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental Center, Bengaluru, has given the opinion on the basis of medical records and clinical notes furnished to him and adduced evidence.

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

9.1 When the expert has provided evidence opining the disability of 11% to the whole body, unless the contra material is placed on record by the Insurance Company to contradict the same, the tribunal may not be in a position to provide expert opinion on the medical issues involved with regard to disability, which is the domain of the medical expert. Therefore, I do not agree with the opinion expressed by the tribunal and the contentions of learned counsel for Insurance Company in sustaining the impugned judgment and award. Hence, if the disability is taken at 11% to the whole body, considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun stated supra , for disability of above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, the compensation that requires to be awarded is Rs.3,00,000/-.

9.2 Under the circumstance, in the present case, the claimant- minor child namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, hardship

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

inconvenience and discomforts etc. and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings of parents of petitioner, which do not call for interference and the same

are retained. Accordingly, the claimant-son namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- as against Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

In view of the above discussions, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeals are allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgements and award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MVC.Nos.4372/2021 and 4373/2021 on the file of VIII Additional Judge and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, are modified;

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

iii) The claimant-father namely, K.Manohar Reddy in MFA.No.871/2024 (MVC.No.4372/2021) is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum;

iv) The claimant-son namely, K.Jaswanth Reddy in MFA.No.881/2024 (MVC.No.4373/2021) is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,45,000/- as against Rs.1,45,000/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum;

v) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company in both the cases within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

vi) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants in both the cases as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimants upon furnishing the required Bank details/upon proper identification;

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13926 MFA No. 871 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 881 of 2024

vii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the

tribunal shall stand intact.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41