Mr K P Abhishek Vs the Divisional Controller

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8062 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

MR. K.P. ABHISHEK S/O PRAKASH K.G. AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KOPATI VILLAGE CHETTIMANI POST BHAGAMANDALA MADIKERI KODAGU - 571 201 NOW RESIDING AT KAPITHANIO PUMPWELL, KANAKANADY MANGALORE D K DISTRICT PIN - 575 005 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE PIN-570 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BALARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE)

¶9

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶10

HC-KAR

¶11

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04/10/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.45/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, D.K. MANGALURU, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 04.10.2017 in MVC.No.45 of 2016 by the IV Additional District Judge and Member, M.A.C.T, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal')

¶16

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

Sri Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a

¶18

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

grave error in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.9,000/- per month by ignoring the fact that the injured was working as Site Engineer and earning Rs.16,000/- per month. It is submitted that the Tribunal has assessed disability at 8% which is contrary to the evidence of PW2 and other medical evidence on record. It is submitted that as per Exs.P14 and P15, the appellant was a bachelor, sustained grievous injuries to urethral resulting in damage to his urinary process and is required to carry a constant tube to pass the urine. It is submitted that as per the certificate at Ex.P4 and oral evidence of PW2, it indicates that the injured is unable to perform sexual activities and may not be able to father children. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head of loss of future prospects of marriage, he was inpatient for more than 123 days, spreading over two years. Hence, the award of compensation by the tribunal on all other heads are

¶21

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

required to be reassessed appropriately by allowing the appeal.

¶24

Per contra, Sri Balaraj A.C., the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the

¶25

Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the income at Rs.9,000/- per month, as the appellant failed to produce any proof of income. It is submitted that the doctor has assessed the disability at 15% to a particular limb and considering the same, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 8% and awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference and seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶26

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondentCorporation and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶27

The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is:

¶28

5 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following reasons:

¶33

The appellant as well as the respondent are not in dispute that the appellant met with a road accident on 18.09.2015 and was provided treatment at District Hospital Madikeri and Mangala Nursing Home at Mangalore. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/Corporation is liable to pay the compensation for the damage and loss caused to the appellant.

¶34

The appellant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000. The Tribunal, considering the evidence adduced in the matter

¶35

has awarded total compensation of Rs.15,60,520/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶36

In order to prove the loss and damage to the appellant injured, he examined himself as PW1, examined

¶37

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Dr.Ashok Pandith as PW.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16. The respondent examined the driver of the Bus as RW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

¶40

The evidence of PW1 injured as well as the evidence of PW2, Dr. Ashok Pandith, corroborate with regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant. The evidence of PW2, Disability Certificate-Ex.P14, Wound Certificate-Ex.P3 and other evidence on record indicate

¶41

that the appellant has sustained following injuries:

¶42

"(i) Reddish contusion of 5cm x 4cm on the chin with CT scan showing bulging of cervical vertebra (C2-C3, C3-C4);

¶43

(ii) Reddish abrasion of 4cm x 3cm on the outer aspect of right elbow;

¶44

(iii) Reddish contusion of 19cm x 13cm on the right hip;

¶45

(iv) Reddish contusion of 12cm x 10cm on the left side of chest with left hemothorax (blood in the chest);

¶46

(v) Scrotal swelling present;

¶47

(vi) Reddish abrasion of 3cm x 2cm on the back of right hand;

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(vii) Reddish abrasion of 4cm x 2cm on the right knee;

¶51

(viii) Reddish contusion of 15cm x 13cm on the lower part of abdomen with CT and Laparotomy showing;

¶52

a) mesentery tear

¶53

b) Spleen laceration

¶54

c) Fracture of bilateral superior and inferior pubic rami with left sacro iliac joint fracture;

¶55

d) Urethral and rectal injury."

¶56

The medical evidence on record indicates that

¶57

the appellant was inpatient for a period of 123 days on 8 occasions, spreading into nearly more than two years from the date of the accident. The evidence of PW2 corroborated with Ex.P5 Discharge Summary and Ex.P14Certificate of Disability indicate that the Doctor has assessed the disability of the appellant at 15%. The relevant observations of PW2 in his evidence and portion of the aforesaid certificate is extracted herein below:

¶58

"He underwent Colostomy and Suprapubic cystostomy. Later, Urethroplasty was performed. He is now able to void per urethrum and recto-urethral fistula has healed. He will however need life-long

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

follow-up for his urethral stricture. Since Trans-pubic urethroplasty was done he is most likely to have ejaculatory dysfunction and may not be able to father children.

¶62

In my professional opinion, he has 15% disability (for urethral, sexual and fertility dysfunction)."

¶63

The aforesaid observations of PW2 and the medical certificate on record clearly indicate that the appellant has undergone colostomy and Suprapubic rest homes. The PW.2 is of the opinion that the appellant requires a lifelong follow-up for his urethral stricture, since Trans-pubic urethroplasty was done and he was most likely to have ejaculatory dysfunction and may not be able to father of children. The aforesaid evidence clearly indicates that the appellant could not be able to perform sexual activities and could not be able to father children.

¶64

In other words, the disability suffered by the appellant would result in loss of marriage prospects of the appellant.

¶65

It is to be noticed that the appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and claims to have

¶66

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

been working as a Site Engineer and earning Rs.16,000 per month. However, no evidence is placed to that effect. Hence, his income is notionally assessed at Rs.10,000/per month considering his educational qualification. The Doctor himself has assessed disability at 15%. Hence, his disability is assessed at 15%. Taking note of the fact that the injured was inpatient for 123 days, spreading into two years and taking note of the aforesaid evidence on record, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be reassessed appropriately and the same is reassessed as under:

¶69

HEADS	AMOUNT
	(in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	1,50,000/-
Loss of income due to disability	3,24,000/-
(10,000/-x 12 x 18 x 15%)
Loss of income during laid up period	1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	1,50,000/-
Medical expenses	11,44,000/-

¶70

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges	50,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects	3,00,000/-
Future medical expenses	50,000/-
Total	22,68,000

¶73

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

¶74

total compensation of Rs.22,68,000/- as against

¶75

Rs.15,60,520/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶76

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶79

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 04.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.45/2016 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.22,68,000/- as against Rs.15,60,520/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:18390 MFA No. 8062 of 2018

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶84

d) The respondent Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶85

e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.

¶86

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶87

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶88

MKM

¶89

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

Mr K P Abhishek v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K P Abhishek v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Vs Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Kumari Prakruthi Vs Raju B M

Sri M B Dayanand Vs Sri Hosalaiah

Mukesh Kumar Nahar Vs Mr. Bikam Chand

Sri Basavaraju S B Vs Sri. Shankaregowda K

Sri P S Jayappa Vs C Manjunatha