Sri Sridhara M P Vs Sri Mahadevaiah

THE MANAGER SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.41, A J CHAMBER, R V ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 (POLICY NO. 418007/31/19/020028 VALID FORM 11-12-2018 TO 10-12-2019)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2024 PASSED IN MVC

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NO.6023/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, PRL. MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

CAV JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and award dated 22.07.2024 passed in MVC No.6023/2019 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member Prl. MACT, Bengaluru.

¶27

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶28

The Injured claimant met with an accident on 17.09.2019 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.17,73,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Aggrieved by the said order petitioner preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the respondent No.1 has not appeared and he was placed ex-parte. Appellant was working as an agriculturalist and also doing dairy farming and he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The petitioner suffered fracture of right patella, injury to the cervical and permanent physical disability of 90% to the whole body, but, the Tribunal considered only 50%. The petitioner examined PW2/doctor and he stated that the appellant has to undergo another surgery. But the amount granted by the Tribunal towards the future medical expenses is on lower side. Tribunal has not assessed the income of the appellant based on the material available on the record. The amounts granted under various heads are on lower side and needs to be enhanced. The Tribunal erred in not granting loss of future prospects. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶32

Though petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.18,000 per month. He has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2019, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.14,000/- per month as he was aged 32 years, the multiplier is to be taken as ‘16’. The Petitioner examined

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

PW2 doctor and filed Ex.P2 Wound Certificate and also discharge summary under Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the case sheet of NIMHANS Hospital. PW2 doctor stated that the petitioner suffered permanent physical disability of 90% to whole body. In the cross examination PW2 stated that he treated right patella fracture of the petitioner and further stated that the fracture suffered by the petitioner is united. He was inpatient for 3 days, at the second time of admission he was admitted to Ramakrishna Hospital. PW2 also stated that petitioner informed him that he visited NIMHANS hospital. He has seen the medical records of the petitioner regarding earlier treatment taken by him. He further stated that fracture is united and implants are in situ. Ex.P5 is the document of the NIMHANS. He also stated that he has not verified NIMHANS document at the time of assessing the disability. He further stated that the petitioner sustained cervical spine cord injury and NIMHANS is the competent hospital to treat the ailment. He further stated that as per Ex.P12, petitioner sustained disc bulge/protrusion noted at C4-C5 causing thecal sac compression with cord indentation, at NIMHANS hospital and no operation was conducted and physiotherapy was advised. He

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

further stated that there are 4 types of paralysis and they monoperisis – one limb, hemiperisis – half of the body, paraplegia – both lower limbs and tetraplegia – all four limbs. He further stated that he observed that there is total loss of bowel and bladder control and he requires continuous catheterisation. According to him, all the four limbs of the petitioner are affected and he is totally paralysed. He also stated that there is a difference between hand grip power 5/5 and hand grip weakness. He further stated that he is suffering from quadriplegia. Though, it is stated by PW2 that he has not verified the NIMHANS record at the time of assessing the disability, in fact, he considered all the medical records and also condition of the petitioner and assessed the disability as 90%. This court finds it just and reasonable to take disability as 100% as per the citation in MFA No.201438/2024 in case of

¶40

Praneet Vs. Vijaya and Anr dated 17.09.2025, in which disability was assessed at 71%, but the functional disability was taken as part of 100%. Even for granting attendant charges, the multiplier method was adopted and Rs.3 lakhs was granted towards loss of marriage prospects. For the same principle, learned counsel for appellant also relied upon MFA

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

No.100275/2015 dated 06.02.2020 in case of the Divisional Manager Vs. Riyazahamed and Anr., Therefore,

¶44

this court finds it reasonable to rely upon the aforementioned citations and medical records and take the disability as 100%. Hence, loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.14,000 + 40% X 12 X 16 X 100% = Rs.37,63,200/-. It was further observed that the petitioner came to the court by sitting in a wheelchair with the help of an assistant, therefore, considering the nature of injurious, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this court finds it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.60,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The Tribunal already granted Rs.51,600/- towards medical expenses and it is confirmed.

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a citation reported in 2018 (8) SCC 492 in case of Rani and Others Vs National insurance Co. Ltd., and Others the Supreme Court of India upheld the "pay and recover" principle, ruling that even if the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit to operate in the State concerned, the Insurance Company is

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

liable to pay the compensation to the victims first, and can thereafter can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶50

Insurance Company examined RW1, RTO of Ramanagar and he stated that as per ‘B’ register extracted autorikshaw had permit to run in Ramanagar town limits from 05.02.2019 to 04.02.2024. As such, the auto rikshaw has no right to take another permit from any other RTO. As per RW2 evidence, permit issued to the auto rickshaw was valid only within the town limits of Ramanagara Town and it is not valid in the limits of Ramanagara Rural. Accident took place about 8 kilometres away from Ramanagara town limits. Ramanagara town limits is only upto 3 kilometres and Highway limits extend upto 10 kms from town limits. Hence, RW3 stated as on the date of accident auto rickshaw had no permit to ply in the place of accident occurred. The driver of auto rickshaw, driven the auto rickshaw beyond permitted limit. Therefore, the Tribunal exonerated Insurance Company and directed respondent No.1 to deposit the award amount. As it is a clear case of a traffic violation, this Court can invoke the principle of pay and recovery as per the

¶51

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

citation reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208) in case of Pappu and

¶54

Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another .

¶55

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as

¶56

below,

¶57

Sl. Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future income	37,63,200
2	Pain and suffering	2,00,000
3	Loss of amenities	1,00,000
4	Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	60,000
6	Medical expenses	51,600
	Total	41,74,800

¶58

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.17,73,600/- to Rs. 41,74,800 /- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶59

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶62

ii. The judgment and award dated 22.07.2024 passed in MVC No.6023/2019 on the file of the

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:20746 MFA No. 5943 of 2024

¶64

9 -

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member Prl. MACT, Bengaluru, is modified.

¶67

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.41,74,800/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.17,73,600/- granted by the tribunal.

¶68

iv. Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.41,74,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order. Insurance company is permitted to recover the same from owner of the vehicle by due process of law.

¶69

v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶70

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶71

AKV

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

Sri Sridhara M P v. Sri Mahadevaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sridhara M P v. Sri Mahadevaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sakamma Vs Sri. Rangappa C

Smt. Lakshmi v Vs Sri Vikram Chandrashekaran Natarajan @ Vikram

Revathi Vs the Managing Director

Chandrahasa D C Vs Mohammad Noushad Melthodi

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Regional Manager

Kavya B S Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.