Karnataka High Court
Vickki @ Vikky @ Vicky S/O Late Biku @ ... vs Manoj S/O Thanu Jadhav And Anr on 14 August, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB
MFA No. 201778 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201778 OF 2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VICKKI @ VIKKY @ VICKY,
S/O. LATE BIKU @ BHIKKU JADHAV,
AGE 22 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE WORK, NOW NIL,
THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND/MOTHER
GORIBAI W/O LATE BHIKU JADHAV,
AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. COLABA, MUMBAI,
NOW R/AT DHANGAPUR, TQ. ALAND,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
Digitally signed by ...APPELLANT
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON (BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. MANOJ S/O. THANU JADHAV
AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE AND
OWNER OF HONDA CB SHINE MOTORCYCLE
NO.MH-01/DJ-2570,
R/O. NEAR BUILDING NO.15,
ROOM NO.156,
MARIAMMAN TEMPLE NAGAR,
PIPE LINE SION KOLIWADA,
MUMBAI-410004.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB
MFA No. 201778 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, V.A. KALABURAGI HALLMARK,
DESAI CROSS, PINTO ROAD,
HUBALI-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 11.07.2023 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2021
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XI, ALAND,
IN M.V.C.NO.844/2019, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 15.11.2021 passed in MVC No.844/2019 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Aland (for short, 'Tribunal), -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of case of injured/petitioner is that on 01.05.2019 he was proceeding towards Nalwar Tanada from Yagapur, Chandunayak Tanda, Yadgir as a pillion rider on motorcycle No.MH-01-DJ-2570 and when they came near Halo Block Factor at Yargol to Nalwar road, Yargol the rider of the said motorcycle rode in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, last control over the vehicle and turn turtle and fell down from the motorcycle. As a result, the injured/petitioner sustained diffuse axonal injury with multiple intracranial injuries and bilateral surgical emphysema and focal diaphragmatic injury. He also sustained injuries to his chest and back and other parts of his body. Immediately, injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Yadgir wherein he took first aid and on the very same day he was admitted at United Hospital, Kalaburagi as inpatient from 01.05.2019 to 02.07.2019. Later he was shifted to Government Medical -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR College and Sts.JJ Group of Hospital, Mumbai for higher treatment wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 03.07.2019 to 31.07.2019. It is contended in the claim petition that injured incurred more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses. It is the case of injured that prior to the accident injured was hale and healthy, aged about 19 years, doing a labour work. Due to the said injuries he became permanently disabled and also he is bedridden and not in a position to speak. He completely lost his memory due to injuries sustained by him. Now he is under the custody of his mother. The claim petition was resisted by respondent No.2 by denying the income, occurrence of accident, nature of injuries and disability and the amount spent towards medical expenses.
4. In order to substantiate the nature of injuries and also to prove the claim made by the injured as he was not in a position to speak, his next friend mother was represented and examined as PW.1 and produced -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR documents as Exs.P1 to 13. The injured also got examined the Doctor as PW.2. The respondents have not led any evidence except producing document as Ex.R1.
5. The Tribunal having considered the material available on record, insofar as Issue No.3 is concerned having considered the amount claimed in the claim petition taken note of pain and suffering and also the documents at Exs.P.9 and 10 i.e., hospital records of United Hospital and Mumbai Hospital and considering the grievous injuries and also the injuries to the injured over the chest and head and diffused axonal multiple intracranial injuries and taken note of the evidence of the Doctor who has been examined as PW.2 before the Tribunal and also considered the medical bills totally 220 in number produced before the Tribunal having spent an amount of Rs.5,32,270/- towards medical expenses and Tribunal also discussed in detail with regard to the future medical expenses as well as attendant charges, food and conveyance charges, particularly discussed in respect of -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR income during treatment period as well as loss of future earning capacity. In paragraph No.23 discussed that injured was inpatient for a period of 88 days in United Hospital, Kalaburgi and Mumbai Hospital. The Tribunal also having taken note of evidence of the Doctor who assessed the disability at 82% to the whole body, considering the scanning report and wound certificate and x-ray films and the injuries sustained i.e., traumatic brain injury and traumatic chest injury since the injured has lost consciousness, breathing difficulty and bleeding from scalp abrasions and wounds and injured was also treated conservatively and also advised to higher treatment, later the injured was admitted at Bombay Hospital,. The Doctor also opined as follows :
1) Patient had grievous cerebral, cerebellar and midbrain traumatic injury as found clinically and radiologically following the accident, Presently -
2) There is paralysis in upper and lower limbs on both sides due to cerebral and cerebellar -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR damage that accounts for neurological disability of 80%.
3) R-facial palsy accounts for 10% disability.
4) He needs support for his daily physical activities by an attendant and it costs about 15 to 20 thousand every month.
The cumulative disability sustained by patient in accident is 82% to entire body and permanent in nature.
6. The Doctor was also cross examined before the Tribunal and in the cross-examination he admits that he has not treated the patient, but he has issued the disability certificate on the basis of the wound certificate and discharge summary issued by the United Hospital Kalaburagi and also Government Hospital, Medical College and Sts.JJ Group of Hospital at Mumbai and the injured cannot speak properly, he sustained injuries of 'L' parietal bone with SBH in 'L' fronto-temporo-parietal bleed in the gangliocapsular region, but admitted that he is not a neurosurgeon. Having considered the admission on the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR part of PW-2, it is seen that Tribunal instead of considering the disability of whole body, considered only 30% of disability and taken the income at Rs.8,000/- per month, and assessed the loss of future income only at Rs.5,18,400/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of amenities. Being aggrieved by this finding, the present appeal is filed.
7. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the just and reasonable compensation in all the heads and even taking the disability as well as income. Tribunal also not awarded any compensation towards attendant charges and it requires revisiting in all aspect of awarding of compensation.
8. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jithendran vs. New India Assurance Company -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR Limited and another1. The counsel referring this decision would vehemently contend that even the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of 69% held that disability must not be measured as a proportionate loss of his earning capacity. The earning life for the appellant is over and as such his income loss has to be quantified as 100%. There is no other way to assess earning loss since appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined to home. In such circumstances, his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100%. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court in paragraph No.8 of the aforesaid decision wherein also discussion was made with regard to an attendant is required throughout his life and also brought to notice of this Court the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken Rs.60,000/- as annual expenses in respect of the attendant is concerned and applying the multiplier of '18', additional compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- is awarded. 1 (2022) 15 SCC 620
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR
9. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also granted an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards future medical expenses as against the award made by the Tribunal as Rs.1,00,000/- and hence prayed this Court to award just and reasonable compensation in all the heads.
10. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would vehemently contend that when the Doctor who has been examined as PW.2 before the Tribunal, categorically admitted that he is not the treated Doctor and also he is not a neurosurgeon. He categorically deposes before the Tribunal that he gave the evidence and assessed the disability based on the documentary evidence available on record. The counsel also would vehemently contend that ought to have examined the Doctor who has treated the injured and also if Doctor is not available ought to have examined a Doctor by appointing a Court Commissioner. Hence the very assessment made by the Tribunal in absence of treated
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR Doctor as well as neurosurgeon, this Court cannot find any fault with assessment made by the Tribunal and it doesn't requires any interference in enhancing compensation.
11. Having heard the appellant's counsel as well as the counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company and also considering the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision and also the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this are :
1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court ?
2. What order ?
12. The occurrence of accident and liability is not in dispute, the dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation. In keeping the said contention urged by the appellant as well as the respondent counsel, this Court has to examine the material available on record. The records
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR clearly discloses that at the first instance immediately after the accident, the injured was taken to the Government Hospital and then he was shifted to United Hospital, Kalaburagi wherein he was admitted for a period of almost two months and thereafter, he was shifted to Mumbai hospital for further higher treatment for a period of one month and in all, he was an inpatient for a period of 88 days. The records also reveals the same and tribunal also considered the same in paragraph No.23.
13. Having taken note of the material into consideration as well as the wound certificate which is produced before the Tribunal as document Ex.P.7 and also the evidence of the Doctor is very clear which has been extracted in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the judgment of the Tribunal. It is important to note that the Doctor who assessed the disability at 82% and Tribunal has taken only 30% disability.
14. It is also important to note that the Doctor has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal and the disability
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR certificate issued by him, who is working in Kothari hospital is marked as Ex.P.11. The opinion of the Doctor towards disability of 82% to the whole body. In the evidence, he categorically said that he verified the wound certificate, scanning report and x-ray films and the injured has sustained the injuries i.e., traumatic brain injury and traumatic chest injury and injured has lost consciousness, breathing difficulty and bleeding from scalp abrasions and wounds. This Court also has to take note of the fact that the mother of the injured was examined before the Tribunal that the injured is unable to speak and also to move and he was treated conservatively and also he took the treatment not only at Kalaburagi even at Mumbai hospital also. The evidence of the Doctor is also very clear that injured had grievous cerebral, cerebral and midbrain traumatic injury as found clinically and radiologically. He also taken note of paralysis in upper and lower limbs on both sides due to cerebral and cerebellar damage that accounts for neurological disability of 80%. The Right
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR palsy accounts also for 10% disability and the injured needs support for his daily physical activities by an attendant and it costs about Rs.15-20 thousand every month. The cumulative disability assessed is 82%.
15. No doubt, the counsel appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court during the course of argument that the Doctor who came forward to give evidence before the Tribunal is not a treated Doctor and also he is not a neurologist, but the fact is that the disability certificate Ex.P.11 clearly discloses the disability of 82% to whole body and in a case of paralysis in respect of upper and lower limbs i.e., quadriplegia, both sides due to cerebral and cerebral damage that accounts for neurological disability. The tribunal committed an error in taking only 30% of disability as against the permanent disability of 82%. No doubt though he was not a neurosurgeon, but the fact that he is a general surgeon and even he can assess the condition of patient and also considering that when there is a paralysis in respect of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR upper and lower limb is concerned, he was immobilized and the status of the injured is nothing but a vegetable status.
16. When such being the case when the injured is not able to speak, not able to move and unable to attend daily physical activities, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing 30% of disability, it requires revisiting of the same. The counsel appearing for the appellant also brought to the notice of this Court the decision in Jithendran's case referred above wherein the claimant had sustained 69% of disability, Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that the same must not be measured as a proportionate loss of his earning capacity. When the injured lost his earning capacity and also earning life for the appellant is over and as such his income has to be quantified as 100%. Having taken note of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and also the opinion of the Doctor though he was not a treated Doctor and having considered his immobility as well as not in a position to
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR speak and also the mother has been examined as next friend in the case on hand and same is also not disputed and having taken note of quadriplegia, this Court has to revisit the material.
17. Having considered the material available on record and the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, we would like to reassess the compensation under all different heads.
18. Now having taken a note of the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 2019, the injured was aged about 19 years and also claim that he was only an agricultural coolie, tribunal ought to have taken the income of Rs.13,250/- instead of Rs.8,000/- committed an error in taking the same. The tribunal also committed an error in not considering the future prospects and the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision wherein it is very clear that while taking 100% of disability also to add 40% future prospects thereto and the monthly loss of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR earning to be quantified including his income as well as future prospects and also the relevant multiplier.
19. Now coming to the conclusion of 100% of disability towards loss of earning of injured and also considering 40% of future prospects as well as the relevant multiplier of '18' it comes to Rs.40,06,800/- towards 'loss of future earning capacity'.
20. Now coming to the aspect of pain and suffering is concerned, injured was an inpatient for a period of 88 days and also had suffered the brain traumatic injury and also injury to chest and quadriplegia, it is appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards 'pain and suffering'.
21. Now coming to the compensation towards food and nourishment, the injured was taken to the Government hospital immediately and thereafter shifted to United Hospital wherein he took treatment almost for a period of two months and then for higher treatment he
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR was taken to Mumbai hospital. Having taken note of the said fact including the food, conveyance and charges, Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- and same is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-.
22. Now insofar as medical expenses is concerned the documents are produced as Ex.P.13 before the Tribunal and the same has been considered which amounts to Rs.5,32,270/- and apart from that, no other documents are produced. Hence we retain the said amount as Rs.5,32,270/- towards 'medical expenses'.
23. Now having taken note of the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured and also it is a case of quadriplegia, he requires the treatment throughout his life. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision referred supra also enhanced the same from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- as discussed in paragraph No.9 and hence it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards future medical expenses as against the amount of Rs.40,000/-
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR since injured must take the treatment throughout his life considering the nature of injuries.
24. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.48,000/- towards 'loss of income during treatment period' and the same cannot be considered when this Court has taken 100% of disability, the question of awarding any such compensation during the period of treatment doesn't arise.
25. Now coming to the aspect of loss of amenities is concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- and having taken note of nature of injuries and also injured sustained the injuries at the age of 19 years and the same also to be taken note of while awarding the loss of amenities and the award amount of Rs.60,000/- is very meager, this Court has to take note of loss of amenities when the injured had sustained the injuries at the age of 19 and hence it is appropriate to award of Rs.1,50,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR
26. Now coming to the aspect of compensation towards attendant charges is concerned, when this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a 100% of disability and also the Doctor who has been examined as PW.2 categorically deposed before the Tribunal that injured is unable to attend his day to day activities and physical activities also cannot be done and when he is in need of an assistance of a person, the principles laid down in the judgment referred by the counsel appearing for the appellant in paragraph no.8 discussed in detail in a case of 69% of disability wherein also taken the disability of 100%. While reassessing the material available on record, even the Hon'ble Apex Court also discussed the decision of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand2 that too in a case of minor, but here is a case of the injured is aged about 19 years and he needs an attendant throughout his life and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jithendran's case (supra) has taken the conservative estimate of Rs.5,000/- per month appears to 2 (2020) 4 SCC 413
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR be the bare minimum and having adopted the multiplier of '18', an additional compensation ordered at Rs.10,80,000/- and in this case also we adopt the very same principle laid down by the Apex Court in Jithendran's case (supra) and awarded an amount of Rs.10,80,000/- towards 'attendant charges'.
27. The injured had sustained the injuries at the age of 19 years and confined to bed and due to the nature of injuries i.e., quadriplegia, there is no chances of marriage in future. When such being the case, this Court would also to take note of the loss of marriage prospects having taken note of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal's case an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of marriage prospects and also the decision in the case of Divya vs. the National Insurance Co.Ltd., & Anr.3 the Apex Court towards 'loss of marriage prospects' also awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and hence we award an amount 3 2022 SCC Online SC 1488
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR of Rs.3,00,000/- towards 'loss of marriage prospects'. We have considered the material available on record and revisited in awarding the compensation that is just and reasonable compensation and hence answered the point No.1 as affirmative. The reassessed compensation is as follows :-
1. Loss of future earning capacity Rs.40,06,800/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
3. Food and nourishment Rs.1,50,000/-
4. Medical expenses Rs.5,32,270/-
5. Future medical expenses Rs.3,00,000/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000/-
7. Attendant charges Rs.10,80,000/-
8. Marriage prospects Rs.3,00,000/-
Total Rs.67,19,070/-
28. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 15.11.2021 passed in MVC No.844/2019 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XI, Aland is modified.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR
iii) The injured is entitled for compensation of Rs.67,19,070/- as against Rs.13,08,670/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
iv) The enhanced compensation is payable by Insurer in eight weeks with interest.
v) Out of the compensation amount, 90% with proportionate interest must be kept in fixed deposit and the same is renewable periodically/automatically without any further orders from the Tribunal.
vi) The mother of the injured is entitled to withdraw the interest quarterly towards treatment and other maintenance of the injured.
vii) The remaining 10% with proportionate interest is payable to the account of the mother of the injured directly by obtaining the bank account and the petitioner counsel is directed to furnish the bank account forthwith to Tribunal.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4696-DB MFA No. 201778 of 2022 HC-KAR
viii) The bank is also directed not to provide any loan without order of the Tribunal on the deposited amount of the injured.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT:JLR