Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, United vs Amregundappa And Ors on 4 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182
MFA No. 201012 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201012 OF 2020 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200835 OF 2021 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.201012/2020:
BETWEEN:
SRI. AMAREGUNDAPPA S/O SANGAPPA,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: EX. LIC AGENT
(PRESENT OCC: NIL), R/O GOREBAL VILLAGE,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 102.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. LINGAPPA G. S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPO
TOOFAN BEARING NO.KA.36/M-5534,
R/O GOREBAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 122.
2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA ALHU S/O AMARESH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TEMPO TOOFAN
CRUISER VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-36/M-5534,
R/O MURANPUR, POST: KALMALA,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 102.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182
MFA No. 201012 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V.V. SUKHANI COMPLES, 1ST FLOOR,
NEAR GANDHI CIRCLE,
RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADV. FOR R3;
V/O DTD. 28.01.2021, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 08.05.2020 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, RAICHUR IN MVC NO.224/2017.
IN MFA NO. 200835/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
V.V. SUKHANI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
NEAR GANDHI CIRCLE, RAICHUR-584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. AMAREGUNDAPPA S/O SANGAPPA,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: EX-LIC AGENT
(PRESENT OCC NIL), R/O GOREBAL VILLAGE,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
NOW RESIDING AT KALMALA VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182
MFA No. 201012 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
2. SRI. LINGAPPA G.
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TEMPO
TOOFAN BEARING NO. KA-36/M-5534,
GOREBAL VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGURU,
DISTRICT RAICHUR-584 101.
3. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA ALHU
S/O AMARESH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
TEMPO TOOFAN
BEARING NO. KA-36/M-5534,
R/O MURANPUR, POST: KALMALA,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED;
V/O DTD. 24.03.2025, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHILCES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 08.05.2020, IN MVC NO. 224/2017 PASSED BY THE
PRL. DIST. JUDGE (MACT) AT RAICHUR, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.03.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182
MFA No. 201012 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.05.2020 in MVC No.224/2017 by the learned Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge & MACT, Raichur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3- Insurance Company are before this Court assailing the judgment.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 28.10.2012 at about 8:00 p.m. the petitioner along with others had been to LIC office, Bagalkot and after finishing their work, were returning in Tempo Toofan (Cruiser) bearing KA-36/M-5534. Near Nandawadagi petrol bunk, a lorry bearing No.KA-39/B-5577 was parked by the side of the road, without putting indicator lights and the driver of the cruiser dashed to the said lorry resulting in the petitioner and few others sustaining injuries and few -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021 others succumbing to their injuries in the accident. The petitioner was taken to government Hospital, Ilkal and thereafter shifted to Dhanush Hospital, Bagalkot. The petitioner had sustained injuries to his left eye, fracture of the clavicle, fracture of bilateral arch, fracture of nasal bone, fracture of the right frontal bone with parietal thin acute EDH and other hemorrhagic contusions & infra ventricular acute hemorrhages. The Ilkal police registered a case in Crime No.178/2012 on the basis of the complaint filed by one Sharanappa against the drivers of both the vehicles and after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the driver of the cruiser vehicle only.
3. Claiming that, the petitioner was aged about 39 years, working as Ex-LIC agent, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, he having suffered permanent disability on account of injuries sustained in the accident, filed the petition for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
4. On issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who were the driver and owner of the cruiser bearing No.KA-36/M-5534 did not appear despite service of notice and as such, placed ex parte.
5. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company appeared and resisted the petition. The respondent No.3 contended that, the driver of the lorry, which was parked by the side of the road was negligent in not putting on the tail indicator lights and therefore, he also contributed negligence for the accident. It denied the negligence of the cruiser driver and the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner. It was also resisted the petition on the ground that the driver of the cruiser had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, since the driver had allowed the fare paying passengers to travel and used the vehicle as a stage carrier. Apart from that, the age, income and occupation of the petitioner was denied and compensation claimed was termed highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and held a common enquiry along with MVC No. 221/2017. The petitioner herein was examined as PW.2; the doctor, who assessed the disability was examined as PW.3; Exs.P1 to P121 were marked in evidence. The official of respondent No.3-Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1.
7. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that, the negligence was on the part of the cruiser driver alone and as such, fastened the liability upon the respondent No.3. It assessed the compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs.8,23,440/- under different heads as below:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.2,53,840/-
3. For attendant charges Rs.9,000/-
4. For nourishing, extra nourishment Rs.15,000/-
and for special diet
5. Loss of income during the Rs.27,000/-
treatment period at the rate of
Rs.9,000/- per month for 3 months
6. Loss of future income on account of Rs.4,53,600/-
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182
MFA No. 201012 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
disability caused to the extent of
30% to whole body
7. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.8,23,440/-
8. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal in MFA No.201012/2020 and the Insurance Company is in appeal before this Court in MFA No.200835/2021.
9. On the appeals being admitted, the trial court records are secured. The arguments by learned counsel for both the appellants are heard.
10. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the cruiser remained absent despite service of notice.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is abysmally low since it did not consider the disability of the petitioner in a proper way. He submits that during pendency of this appeal, this Court had referred the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021 petitioner to the Medical Board at RIMS Hospital, Raichur for assessment of the disability and the Medical Board had given a report that there is disability of about 40% to the whole body of the petitioner. He submits that the loss of vision in one eye has resulted in functional disability to the petitioner. He being an agent of LIC, can no longer perform such work due to loss of eye and therefore, the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 30% is not correct. In fact, the disability should have been held at 100%. He also contended that the petitioner is mentally affected, suffered loss of memory and he needs continuous assistance by another person. Therefore, he seeks re- assessment of the compensation by this Court.
12. So far as the contention of the Insurance Company is concerned, he submits that it is a case of composite negligence for the petitioner since he had no role to play in contributing negligence. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company having not chosen to implead the owner and insurer of the lorry, cannot now dispute the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021 negligence. The petitioner being a third party is at liberty to go against any one of the tort-feasor.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, who is also the appellant in MFA No.200835/2021 submits that the petitioner having not produced any iota of evidence to show that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as an LIC agent, is not entitled to contend that he has suffered permanent functional disability. He submits that the petitioner could have very well produced his bank statement to establish the income. Therefore, the Tribunal assessing the income at Rs.9,000/- per month is excessive. He also states that the disability of 30% assessed by the Tribunal is also on the higher side and seeks reduction in the quantum of compensation awarded. So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, he fairly concede that the case being of composite negligence, the petitioner is at liberty to go against any one of the tortfeasor.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
14. In view of the above submissions, the contention of the Insurance Company in MFA No.200835/2021 so far as it relates to contributory negligence cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd1 lays down the principles of composite negligence. Therefore, what remains to be considered is only about the quantum of compensation based on the income and disability of the petitioner.
15. The petitioner contends that he was an Ex-LIC Agent and he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Though he states that he was a LIC Agent, no documentary evidence is placed on record to prove the same. However, the Ex.P17, which is an Identity Card of Garima Hopes and Farm Houses Limited shows that he was an Agent of that Company. Obviously, the petitioner has not produced any other documentary evidence to establish that he was an Ex-LIC Agent and earning 1 (2015) 9 SCC 273
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021 Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment holds that his job as an Ex-LIC Agent has to be accepted, since, such fact is mentioned in FIR and Complaint at Exs.P1 and P2. The Ex.P2 shows that Sharanappa and a few others were taken to Bagalkot LIC Office by the petitioner Amaregundappa for some work and while returning to their village in the Cruiser vehicle the accident occurred. Though the complaint was lodged against the drivers of the parked lorry and cruiser, charge- sheet was filed against the driver of the cruiser. Therefore, it can safely be said that he was working as a LIC Agent prior to the accident.
16. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show his income. The Tribunal after considering the available evidence, held that the notional income of the petitioner is Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioner being aged about 39 years as per the medical records, was accepted by the Tribunal and it adopted a multiplier of '14'. This aspect also cannot be interfered with.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
17. The next aspect to be decided is the 'disability'. The medical records reveal that the petitioner had sustained spinal injuries. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P14 shows that he has suffered incised wound lateral to the left eye, CLW just below the left eye, bleeding through mouth. The X-ray showed fracture of right clavicle, fracture of ileum bone, bilateral zygomatic maxillary complex fracture, nasal bone fracture and fracture of the right frontal bone. The Discharge Card at Ex.P15 issued by Dhanush Hospital shows the nature of the treatment undergone by him between 29.10.2012 to 02.12.2012. The Disability Certificate issued by Dr. Amaresh Deginal shows that the petitioner had sustained severe head injury and was unconscious. There was bleeding in brain and he was on ventilator. He had gradually improved and now the higher mental functions are better, but there is no vision in the left eye. It is stated that he has stuttering speech, agitative, apprehensive and there is Grade-III hemiparsis. Ultimately, he opined that excluding the loss
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021 of the vision the disability is 25%. A careful perusal of the hospital records produced shows that the petitioner had sustained eye injury.
18. The petitioner was referred to the Medical Board of RIMS Hospital, Raichur. The Medical Board has issued the Disability Certificate, which reads as below:
"As per Ophthalmologist opinion patient had history of RTA and sustained left Occular injury on 28-10-2012 treated at higher centre. Now complains of decreased vision in the left eye since 2012 and after necessary assessment he was found to have total permanent visual disability of 30% Thirty Percent (one eyed) The Members of the Medical Board Physician and Orthopedic Surgeon thoroughly examined and opined that the above person is found to have left sided Hemiparesis, and 15% Fifteen percent of Locomotor Disability pertaining upper limb and left lower limb.
Hence as per the Medical Board Members opinion the person is found to have multiple disabilities (Visual and Locomotor Disability).
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021 Hence as per the standard evaluation procedure issued by Govt. of India, the total disability amounts (Fourty percent) of that of whole body."
19. It is pertinent to note that the physical disability of 40% opined by the Medical Board is inclusive of the ophthalmic as well as orthopedic disability. The Tribunal has to assess the functional disability of the petitioner. He being an Ex-LIC Agent and having mild Hemiparesis, has lost an eye. Though the physical disability opined by the Medical Board is 40%, the functional disability appears to be on the higher side. The Tribunal takes the disability at 30%. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above injuries which result in 40% physical disability as per the opinion of the Medical Board would translate into a functional disability of atleast 45%. It is pertinent to note that such disability is permanent in nature and it cannot be improved. The say of the PW3 - Dr. Deginal indicates that it is permanent disability. The cross-examination of PW3 do not disclose anything which would show that the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021 disability may reduce. Therefore, loss of future prospects have to be considered. Hence, by adding 40% to the notional income of Rs.9,000/- the effective multiplicand would be Rs.12,600/-. Hence, the loss of future income is calculated as Rs.12,600 x 12 x 14 x 45% = Rs.9,52,560/- by adopting multiplier of '14' for the age of 39 years.
20. Consequently, the loss of income during laid up period is calculated for six months at (Rs.9,000/- x 6) = 54,000/-.
21. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, the same is enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.
22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- + Rs.15,000/- under the head of attendant's charges and nourishment etc. Considering the fact that the petitioner was inpatient for more than a month, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to him towards attendant's charges, nourishment, conveyance etc.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182 MFA No. 201012 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
23. The petitioner has almost lost an eye and has suffered the head injury as spoken by PW3. Therefore, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life.
24. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards the medical expenses do not require any interference.
25. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.14,10,400/- under follows heads:
Sl. Heads Award amount
No.
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.60,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.2,53,840/-
3 Loss of income due to Rs.9,52,560/-
permanent physical disability
4 Conveyance, nourishment and Rs.40,000/-
attendant's charges
5 Loss of amenities in life Rs.50,000/-
6 Loss of income during laid up Rs.54,000 /-
period
Total Rs.14,10,400/-
Less: Award by the Tribunal Rs.8,23,440/-
Total Rs.5,86,960/-
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182
MFA No. 201012 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
26. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The MFA No.200835/2021 is dismissed.
The MFA No.201012/2020 is allowed in part.
ii) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.5,86,960/- in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its deposit before the Tribunal.
iii) The respondent No.3 - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount with interest,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2182
MFA No. 201012 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200835 of 2021
within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.
iv) Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SBS LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 59 CT: AK