Darshini B K Vs Guruprasad D v

DARSHINI B.K, D/O KENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT BELEGULI HANDANAKERE HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU CITY - 572 106.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

GURUPRASAD D.V, S/O LATE DIVAKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.92, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, BYADARAHALLI COLLEGE STOP, NEAR BALAJI TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS.CO.LTD., MANGALYA PUNARBHAV,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NO.132, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.04.2026, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 71/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The Tribunal passed a common award dated 19.07.2023 in MVC.No.71/2022, MVC.No.72/2022 and

¶26

MVC No.79/2022. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 19.07.2023 passed in MVC No.71/2022 on the file of

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶30

Heard the arguments of both sides. The ranks

¶31

of the parties are retained as per the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶32

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an

¶33

accident on 03.01.2021 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.10,09,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the appellant was aged 20 years, doing coolie work and earning Rs.25,000/- per month but the Tribunal has erred in taking her notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month which is on the lower side. She was in hospital as an inpatient for a period of 26 days and incurred

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Permanent disability is assessed at 75% to the right leg. The Tribunal ought to have taken the permanent disability at 100% and added 100% future prospects but the Tribunal erred in taking the disability at 20%. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are meagre and no amount is granted under the head loss of marriage prospects. The doctor stated that she requires Rs.60,000/- for removal of the implants but the Tribunal has granted only Rs.25,000/which is on lower side. Interest is to be granted at the rate of 12% and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶37

Though the petitioner stated that she was

¶38

working and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, she has not filed any income proof. As she met with an accident in the year 2021, the Tribunal has rightly considered her notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

and it is confirmed. The petitioner was aged 21 years and the relevant multiplier applicable is 18.

¶42

Ex.P4 is the wound certificate and Ex.P8 is the

¶43

discharge summary. The petitioner has also examined the doctor as PW4, a consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, who deposed that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

¶44

i) Grade-III compound communited fracture over right femur

¶45

ii) Grade-II compound fracture both bones of right leg.

¶46

iii) Grade-III compound fracture dislocation over right ankle.

¶47

The petitioner was treated with debridement and

¶48

interlocking nailing to the tibia and femur and the ankle dislocation reduced and fixed with steinmann pin. X-ray shows that fractures of femur and tibia have united with implants in situ and right ankle loss of partial talar bone present ie., secondary osteoarthriur right ankle. Her hip

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

restrains terminally restricted and knee flexion 0-90 degree present and ankle painful movement present. The doctor has further opined that:

¶52

i) The petitioner has difficulty in walking.

¶53

ii) Sitting cross legged and squatting

¶54

iii) Painful limp present at ankle joint

¶55

The doctor assessed present partial disability of 75% to the right leg and 25% disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 20%. In crossexamination, it is stated that the fractures have united, but implants are still in situ. Relying upon medical evidence, this Court finds it reasonable to take one-third of 75% ie., 25% disability to the whole body for the purpose of calculation. As the disability is more than 20%, the petitioner is entitled for future prospects as per the citation reported in MFA No.103807/2016 New India

¶56

Assurance Company and Others Vs. Abdul S/o. Mehaboob Tahasildar and others . The petitioner was

¶57

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

aged 21 years and she is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. Accordingly, loss of future running capacity comes to Rs.15,000/- + 40% x 12 x 18 x 25% =

¶60

Rs.11,34,000/- . The Tribunal has granted

¶61

Rs.1,61,627/- as per Ex.P9 towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. The petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 26 days. Considering the nature of injuries, her occupation, the period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.40,000/- towards for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. She might not have attended any other work at least for a period of four months. Therefore, Rs.60,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 4) is to be granted under the head loss of income during laid up period. This Court also finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as

¶65

below:

¶66

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning capacity	11,34,000
Pain and suffering	1,00,000
Loss of amenities	50,000
Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	40,000
Loss of income during laid up period	60,000
Medical Expenses	1,61,627
Future Medical Expenses	40,000
Total	15,85,627

¶67

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶68

total enhanced compensation of Rs.15,85,627/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶69

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶72

ii. The judgment and award dated 19.07.2023 passed in MVC No.71/2022, by

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:19649 MFA No. 5863 of 2024

¶74

9 -

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, is modified;

¶77

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,85,627 /- along with interest at 6% p.a as from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.10,09,700/granted by the tribunal.

¶78

iv. Respondent No.2 has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.5,75,927/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶79

v. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶80