Smt. Girijamma Vs Sri. Gurumurthy

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1374/2019 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O.NO.77/B, 10TH MAIN, J.C. LAYOUT DEVASANDRA, BENGALURU EAST Digitally signed BENGALURU-560036. by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶7

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADV.,)

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI. GURUMURTHY S/O SANJEEVAPPA R/O. AVALAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST BENGALURU-560036.

¶11

THE MANAGER

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADV., FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O/DTD:25.10.2023)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.506/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALRU [SCCH-4], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.08.2018 passed in MVC.No.506/2015 by the Member, MACT, XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶22

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

¶23

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

¶24

Sri.Chethan B., learned counsel for the

¶25

appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed gross

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

error in awarding meager compensation of Rs.60,000/with the interest without awarding any compensation under the head of loss of future income, towards the pain and suffering, towards the loss of amenities of life, loss of income during the laid up period, food, conveyance and attendant charges, etc. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the appellantclaimant has got reimbursement of the medical bills and rejected all the bills, which is incorrect as the reimbursement is only to an extent of Rs.3,00,000/-, whereas, the bills on record are for a sum of Rs.3,98,196/-. Hence, he seeks to reassess the compensation by considering the disability suffered by the appellant and seeks to allow the appeal.

¶29

Per contra, Sri Mohan Kumar T., Learned

¶30

counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - insurance company submits that there is no disability certificate on record to assess the disability of the injured-claimant. It is submitted that the claimant has examined PW-2-Doctor,

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

he has also not spoken anything with regard to the disability. It is further submitted that the injuries suffered by the appellant are minor in nature and the claimant was hospitalised for sometime for observation and thereafter she was discharged. Considering these aspects, the

¶34

Tribunal is fully justified in awarding Rs.60,000/- as a compensation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶36

counsel appearing on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records.

¶37

The only point that would arise for

¶38

consideration in this appeal is :

¶39

" Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶40

It is not in dispute that on 07.01.2015, when

¶41

the injured claimant was proceeding along with her children on the edge of the road near Chinnagenahalli

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

road, the driver of the Maruti car bearing Registration No.KA-53-N-2653 drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant, as a result the claimant was thrown on the road and sustained abdominal injuries. The Tribunal recorded the injuries suffered by the claimant,

¶45

which are extracted herein below:

¶46

"i. Blunt injury abdomen with splenic laceration, ii. Multiple mesenteric tears, iii. Gangrenous segment of small bowel with hemoperitoneum."

¶47

The Tribunal, considering the said aspect, has awarded Rs.60,000/- as total compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The contention of the appellantclaimant is that the Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation and the same is required to be considered by taking note of the oral testimony of PW-1, who is the injured-claimant and PW-2, Dr.Chaitanya Sinha, who is a registered surgeon working in Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, who has provided treatment along with other doctors in

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the Manipal Hospital to the claimant. The evidence of PW-2 clearly indicates that she has produced the authorization letter, outpatient records and inpatient records before the Tribunal. The perusal of the discharge summary, which is marked as Ex.P-7, clearly indicates that the claimant has sustained cut injuries on the abdomen and she was provided the following treatment:

¶51

"In MHB, ER, she was hypotensive and acidotic. She was fluid resuscitated, 1 unit of PRBC transfused and crystalloids. CT contrast was done which revealed splenic laceration and jejunal gangrene. She was transferred to OT and she underwent Emergency laparotomy + splenectomy + Resection of gangrenous small bowel and ileo ascending colon anastomosis and peritoneal lavage and transferred to MICU for post op care."

¶52

The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and she underwent surgery. Thereafter, after noticing that all parameters are normal, she was discharged from the hospital after a period of 16 days from the date of admission. It is also not in dispute that the claimant has not produced the disability certificate before the Tribunal

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

nor PW-2, who has examined the claimant, has assessed the disability. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the claimant-injured has sustained grievous injuries in the road accident, she was in-patient for more than 16 days, underwent surgery and incurred substantial expenses for the same. Hence, taking note of the same, I am of the view that the claimant may not be entitled to compensation under the head of loss of income due to physical disablement, but she is entitled to compensation under other heads.

¶57

The another contention of the learned counsel

¶58

for the appellant is that the appellant has produced 48 bills, which are marked as Ex.P8 and the Tribunal, considering those bills, has recorded the finding that the expenses of said medical bills were reimbursed by the insurance company in a different contract. However, it is contended that the Tribunal has ignored some of the bills, and the total of said bills would be Rs.98,196/-. Hence, he claims that the claimant is entitled to remaining amount of

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the bill for a sum of Rs.98,196/-. The perusal of the bills makes it very clear that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation for the remaining amount which was not reimbursed by the insurance company in a private contract between the claimant and the said private health insurance company. Hence, the claimant is entitled for the reimbursement of the medical bill for a sum of

¶62

Rs.98,196/- .

¶63

Having recorded the finding that the appellantclaimant has undergone surgery and she was in-patient for 16 days, suffered blunt injury on abdomen, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.

¶64

It is not in dispute that the appellant-injured was in-patient for 16 days and thereafter she was required to take bed rest at least for a period of 3 months, hence she would have lost her earning for the said period.

¶65

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Hence, considering her income notionally for the said purpose at the rate of Rs.10,000/per month, compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period. The claimant has made assertion that she has minor children and is a tailor by avocation, hence she would have spent substantial money towards the attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges, considering the said aspect, the interest of justice would be met if Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the aforesaid head. Thus, the

¶68

compensation is re-determined as under:

¶69

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Medical expenses	98,196
Pain & suffering	60,000
Loss of amenities in life	50,000
Loss of income during laid up period	30,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000
Total	2,63,196

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:13243 M.F.A. No.1374/2019

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,63,196/- as against Rs.60,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶74

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶75

following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

a) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶78

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

¶79

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,63,196/- as against Rs.60,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶80