Smt Kumari v Vs Executive Engineer

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4418 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT KUMARI V W/O PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.20,WARD NO.18, GORIBAGILU ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL- 562 110

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. KARTHIK A BHARGAV., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶12

BBMP, PULIKESHI NAGAR DIVISION, OFFICE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 052

¶13

DIRECTORATE

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT, INSURANCE DEPARTMENT MOTOR BRANCH, NO.14, 19TH FLOOR, VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER DR B R ABMEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶15

1 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI G N VENUGOPAL S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT R/AT NO.4, 3RD MAIN, ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, G M PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU- 560 075

¶19

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD G E PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA, PUNE- 411 006

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B V MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATEFOR R1; SRI. BHOJEGOUDA.T., AGA FOR R2; V/O DTD 20.12.2023; NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W; SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.3002/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-3), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶25

2 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

The challenge in the present appeal has been made by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement. Two claim petitions were filed, one by the appellant/claimant being MVC No. 3002/2015 and the other being MVC No. 3001/2015. These petitions were disposed of by the Impugned Award.

¶30

The present appeal has been filed impugning Judgment and Award dated 21.06.2017, in MVC No.3002/2015, passed by the Learned VII Additional Judge & XXXII ACMM Court of Small Causes, at Bengaluru, [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, the appellant/claimant Smt. Kumari, has been awarded a compensation of Rs.2,35,429/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The challenge in the present appeal is only to the judgment passed in MVC No.3002/2015.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The brief facts which are relevant in this case are

¶35

that, on 17.09.2014 the injured appellant was travelling along with her relatives and friends in a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.KA-53-MA-6186, and on their

¶36

return to their native place Devanahalli. At about 9.30 p.m., when they were travelling on NH-207, near Hadihosahalli Gate, Yelekal Border, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District, the driver of the heavy goods vehicle belonging to the Respondent No.1/BBMP bearing registration No.KA-04-C-9470 while driving in a rash and negligent manner and had collided with the vehicle in which the appellant was travelling. The collision resulted in the loss of some of the occupants of the vehicle and injuries to the appellant/claimant.

¶37

The case of negligence was registered against the driver of the heavy goods vehicle, which resulted in a criminal petition being filed in Crime. No.94/ 2014. The respondent, the owner of the vehicle, Maruti Alto Car was also impleaded as a party, although no relief was sought

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

against him. The matter was contested by the Respondent

¶42

No.4/Insurance Company as well as by the Respondent

¶43

No.1/BBMP.

¶44

Based on the pleadings between the parties the

¶45

learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶46

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that she met with RTA that occurred on 17-09-2014 at about 9.30 p.m., on NH-207, near Hadihosahalli Gate, Yelekal Border, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala, Bangalore and the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of HGV Truck bearing No.KA-04-C-9470?

¶47

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

¶48

3. What order or Award?"

¶49

The appellant examined herself as PW2 as well as her doctor as PW3. The appellant also filed documents in support of her case. The respondents examined RW1, the manager of respondent no.3/Insurance Company.

¶50

Based on the evidence between the parties, the

¶51

learned Tribunal found that rash and negligent driving

¶52

5 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

stood proved and awarded compensation to the appellant and to the other who were claimants of the deceased.

¶56

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated disability of the appellant. In addition, it is contended that, despite the evidence of the doctor PW-3, the future medical expenses are wrongly assessed at Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.50,000/-. Additional amounts have also been sought for non-pecuniary heads including loss of amenities.

¶57

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the awarded amounts are in accordance with law. However, on the aspect of the notional income, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that, since the accident was in the year 2014, the national income should have been taken at Rs.8,500/per month. The learned counsel also submitted that the future medical expenses were adequately awarded by the learned Tribunal. On the aspect of assessment for

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

disability, it was contended that no documents have been produced by the appellant/ claimant to show that she has

¶62

undertaken the surgery.

¶63

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Pain and Agony	Rs. 30,000.00
2.	Loss of income during treatment period	Rs. 14,000.00
3.	Disability	Rs. 73,920.00
4.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 82,509.00
5.	Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc	Rs. 20,000.00
6.	Future medical expenses	Rs. 15,000.00
	TOTAL	Rs. 2,35,429.00

¶64

The claim petition qua, the respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 was dismissed and the appellant was awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,35,429/- in the following terms:

¶65

This Court has examined the evidence of the appellant-PW2 as well as the evidence of the doctor/PW3.

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

In addition to the doctor's evidence, the appellant had also produced the wound certificate as Exhibit P8 as well as medical bills amounting to Rs.1,51,544/- as Exhibit P9. The Learned Tribunal examined the medical bills and found that certain bills have been included twice and thus an amount of Rs.82,509/was awarded towards reimbursement of medical bills. However, on the loss of future earnings, the learned Tribunal held that, the appellant is suffering from partial physical impairment of the right arm and since the whole body disability is 16%. The Learned Tribunal also found that PW3 the (doctor) who has treated the patient, has stated in his cross examination that, her fracture is united and has thus held that the assessment of disability appears to be "vague and excessive". The whole body disability was taken at 8% awarded to the appellant. The relevant extract of this finding is set out below.

¶70

"c) Loss of future earning

¶71

28. P.W.3 doctor of Hosmat hospital has on deposed that he examined the petitioner 21-03-2017 for assessment of disability. He has stated that the petitioner is suffering

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

from permanent partial impairment of right arm component at 49% and whole body impairment disability at 16%. P.W.3 in his cross-examination has stated that along with team of doctors, he has treated the petitioner and now the fracture is united. The assessment of disability appears to be vague and excessive. From the petition and other Police & medical documents, the age of the petitioner appears to be 54 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the age of the petitioner is considered as 54 years. Considering the age, nature of injury and treatment taken by the petitioner, the whole body disability is taken at

¶76

8%. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the said age is 11. So, the total loss of future earnings due to disability would be (7,000 x 12 X 11 X 8/100) Rs.73,92000. So, I awarded Rs.73,920-00 for the above head"

¶77

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶78

The loss of amenities was awarded at Rs. 20,000/and future medical expenses was awarded at Rs. 15,000/by the Learned Tribunal, giving a finding that although the PW3 (doctor) has deposed that one more surgery is required and would cost about Rs.50,000/-, no documents were produced to prove the same. Therefore, compensation at Rs.15,000/- was awarded for further medical expenses. The relevant extract of this finding is set out below.

¶79

"f) Future Medical expenses:

¶80

31. P.W.3 doctor has deposed that the fracture has united and petitioner needs one more surgery for right humorous and the removal of implant estimated

¶81

9 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

cost of the surgery is about Rs.50,000-00. But P.W.2 or P.W.3 have not produced any documents to prove the same. Therefore, it is just and necessary to award compensation of Rs. 15,000-00 it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.15,000-00 is granted to the petitioner."

¶85

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶86

As stated above, the appellant has challenged these

¶87

findings. This Court has examined the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who is the doctor, who is an Orthopedic surgeon working at Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore has after

¶88

examining the appellant on 17.09.2014, the date of the accident, on basis of the disability guidelines and gazette notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and

¶89

Empowerment of India, the doctor has deposed that the partial impairment of the right arm would be 40% and the whole body impairment would be 16%. In addition, the

¶90

doctor has stated that although the fracture has united, one surgery estimated at Rs.50,000/- would be required.

¶91

The relevant extract of the PW3 of is set out below:

¶92

"1. On 17-9-2014 we received one patient by name Smt.Kumari (Hospital No.374326) the Petitioner in above case in our casualty with history of RTA. On examination she was found to have the following injuries;

¶93

10 -

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

a) Comminuted fracture-shaft of right humerus, she was admitted and she underwent ORIF fracture humerus- right with LCP and Screws on 17-9-2014

¶97

She was discharged on 18-9-2014……."

¶98

---xx--- ---xx-----xx---

¶99

"Permanent partial impairment of right arm component =43+6=49%

¶100

Whole body impairment = 16%

¶101

Further the fracture has united and she needs one more surgery for removal of implant- right hummers. The estimated cost of the surgery is about 50,000/-"

¶102

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶103

The appellant/claimant had also deposed before the

¶104

learned Tribunal that in her evidence as PW2 she had affirmed that she is an agriculturist and was carrying out

¶105

family work on the land and that she did not have any

¶106

disease or ailment earlier. She further stated that she was

¶107

earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, but now she is in a vegetative state. The appellant had also contended that

¶108

she is unable to return to work due to which she has lost her income and now she is dependent on assistance. Paragraphs No. 7 to 9 of the affidavit in evidence of PW2 is extracted below.

¶109

11 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

"7. I affirm that, I am an agriculturalist and used to do milk business in my village besides working along with my husband in the family agricultural land. I did not have any disease or ailment but was strong enough to cultivate my lands with my family. I was earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month from agriculture and milk business and I was the back bone of my family but as a result of the aforesaid accident I am now in a vegetative state and I am unable to perform work and do milk business as before.

¶113

8. I affirm that, I have sustained the closed comminated mid shaft fracture right humerus with butterfly fragment and underwent several painful surgeries by incurring huge expenditures. I was hospitalized on 17-09-2014 to 18-09-2014.

¶114

9. I affirm that, I am still suffering from injuries of the accident and am still unable to get back to my work due to which I have lost income besides suffering from pain and agony still undergoing several treatments and medication. I am now dependent on the assistants to do my day to day work. The RTC extracts to show lands standing in my husband's name wherein I too work on the field and earn along with my husband and family is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-P7".

¶115

[Emphasis supplied]

¶116

It is not disputed by the parties that, no cross

¶117

examination was undertaken by the respondents of the

¶118

claimant witnessess. The examination of the evidence shows that the appellant suffered a fracture of her right arm and that this would make the appellant who was an agriculturist unable to perform work in the same manner

¶119

as she would before. Although the fracture would had

¶120

12 -

¶121

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

healed the appellant would as stated by the doctor PW3

¶124

the appellant would not be able to function in the same manner as she did before.

¶125

No reasons have been assigned by the learned Tribunal to reduce the disability other than stating that the disability is "vague and excessive ". Once the appellant has given evidence that she is not able to perform her work in the same manner, the learned Tribunal would be required to examine the aspect of functional disability. Given that the injury is to the right arm and the appellant performs manual work, the disability. Thus, 16% disability should have been awarded by the Learned Tribunal.

¶126

In addition, so far as concerns, future medical

¶127

expenses, the doctor deposed that the surgery would cost Rs.50,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that

¶128

usually these surgeries would have taken place several

¶129

13 -

¶130

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

years ago and these surgeries do not cost more than Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.

¶133

However, it cannot be disputed by the respondents

¶134

that the surgery was required to take place. Thus, awarding Rs.15,000/- as future medical expenses when the doctor has stated that it would cost approximately Rs. 50,000/- cannot not be sustained. The future medical

¶135

expenses would requires to be enhanced by at least Rs.15,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶136

The loss of amenities, which has been awarded at

¶137

Rs.20,000/-. Given the settled position of law, loss of amenities is increased to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.20,000/-

¶138

awarded earlier by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the compensation awarded is required to be enhanced in the

¶139

following manner:

¶140

Sl.No	Particulars	Amount (Rs.)
01	Pain and suffering	30,000/-
02	Loss of Income during treatment	14,000/-

¶141

14 -

¶142

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

	period
03	Disability 8,500X12X 11 X 16/100	1,79,520/-
04	Medical Expenses	82,509/-
05	Loss of amenities, conveyance,
	food and nourishment,	30,000/-
	attendant charges etc.
06	Future Medical Expenses	30,000/-
	Total	3,66,029/-

¶145

Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total

¶146

compensation of Rs.3,66,029/- along with interest at the

¶147

rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the

¶148

date of realization.

¶149

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions:

¶150

ORDER

¶151

(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶152

(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 21.06.2017 in MVC No.3002/2015 passed by the

¶153

VII Additional, Judge and XXXII Additional Chief

¶154

15 -

¶155

NC: 2026:KHC:7099 MFA No. 4418 of 2018

¶156

HC-KAR

¶157

Metropolitan Magistrate, Court of Small Causes, , Bengaluru, is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,30,600/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.2,35,429/- that has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶158

(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

¶159

(iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 8% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

¶160