Karnataka High Court
Sri. Girish Chandra J vs Sri. Panchalingaiah B K on 4 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30166
MFA No. 3964 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3964 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GIRISH CHANDRA J
S/O JAYARAM H.C
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O NO.49, 1ST MAIN
MALLATHAHALLI
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU 560 056
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.V. MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PANCHALINGAIAH B.K
S/O KEMPALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
Digitally signed R/O BUDIGUPPE VILLAGE
by ANJALI M KALLAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI
Location: High KANAKAPURA TALUK
Court of
Karnataka RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-568 201
2. THE MANAGER
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE
PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK
TOWER-A, 15TH FLOOR, G.K.MARG
LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013
REPRESENTED BY ITS
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE
CO LTD., NO.69, MILLERS ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30166
MFA No. 3964 of 2021
HC-KAR
2ND FLOOR, GP AND DEVI
JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE
BENGALURU 560 052
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 6573/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-18, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The petitioner/appellant-Sri.Girish Chandra.J., S/o Jayaram H.C., has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned III Additional Judge and MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) in MVC.No.6573/2018. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR
2. The brief and relevant facts leading to this appeal are as under:
That on 08.09.2018 at about 3:40 a.m., the petitioner/appellant was traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-42-M-9491 along with other inmates from Bengaluru towards Hubli and the said car driven by one Kiran and when they reached near Hanagawadi Industrial Area, Hanagawadi village on NH-4 road, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the right side road divider and then it was toppled over and dashed to another fore coming lorry bearing registration No.MH-09-EM-9155 and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the driver of the car and petitioner/appellant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner/appellant was shifted to S.S.Institute of Medical Science hospital, Davanagere and from there he was shifted to BGS Global hospital, Kengeri, Bangalore. He has also taken treatment at Unity Lifeline -4- NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR Hospital, Bengaluru as an inpatient and underwent surgery. After discharge from the hospital, he has also taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient by spending huge medical expenses and other incidental charges. According to the petitioner/appellant, when the accident has taken place, he was about 27 years and working as an Information Technology Executive at DTDC and Cargo ltd., earning Rs.14,830/- p.m. Because of the accidental injuries, the petitioner/appellant has sustained severe injuries and has become permanently disabled. Thus, he prays to award the compensation as prayed for.
3. Before the Tribunal, both respondents have appeared and respondent No.2 has filed written statement. Respondent No.1 has not filed written statement. The assertions made in the petition with regard to the accidental injuries sustained by the petitioner/appellant as well as his income and liability etc., have been disputed by the respondent No.2. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR
4. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, learned Tribunal has framed relevant issues. To prove the case of the petitioner/appellant, he himself entered the witness box as PW.1 and so also examined PW.2-T.S.Ramamurthy, PW.4-Dr.Veeresha U Mathad and PW.5-Dr. Raju K.P., and got marked 33 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. None of the respondents lead any evidence.
5. On hearing the arguments and on assessment of the evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as under :
Sl. Heads Amount in
No. Rs.
1. Towards loss of future income 12,10,200/-
2. Towards pain and suffering 1,00,000/-
3. Towards attendant, 50,000/-
nourishment and conveyance
charges
4. Towards loss of amenities 50,000/-
5. Towards medical expenses 9,31,200/-
6. Towards future medication 1,50,000/-
Total 24,91,400/-
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30166
MFA No. 3964 of 2021
HC-KAR
6. Insofar as the liability is concerned, it fastened the liability on respondent No.2-Insurer of the offending vehicle holding that, both respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation. Now, the petitioner/appellant is seeking enhancement of compensation by preferring this appeal.
7. So far as the accident that has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the car owned by respondent No.1 is concerned, it is not in dispute. Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the said offending vehicle is also not in dispute. The findings of the Tribunal on these aspects has attained finality. There are no appeals preferred by the respondents.
8. It has come in the evidence placed on record by the petitioner/appellant before the Tribunal that, at the time of accident, the petitioner/appellant, was aged 27 years and he was an Engineering Graduate in Electronics -7- NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR and Communication. To prove the fact of his avocation, he has produced his salary certificate. He was working as Information Technology Executive at DTDC Express Ltd. Bengaluru. He has produced his salary slip showing monthly income at Rs.14,830/-. While marking the said document, no objections are raised by the respondents.
9. It is the case of the petitioner/appellant before the Tribunal that, in the said accident, he has sustained injuries like 'left side hemiparesis - power in left hand 2/5 and left leg 2/5'. He was treated as an inpatient in ICU as he has sustained multiple grievous injuries.
10. To prove the age of the petitioner/appellant, he has produced copy of his Aadhar card at Ex.P14. His date of birth is shown as 21.09.1991. Thus, as on the date of accident, he was aged about 27 years, which is not in dispute.
11. So far as educational qualification is concerned, petitioner/appellant has produced 10 documents as Ex.P15 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR to Ex.P19, which were marked in evidence without any objections. Thus, from the above evidence, it is proved by the petitioner/appellant that as on the date of accident, he was earning Rs.14,830/- per month.
12. It is his case that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and because of the said accidental injuries, he was relieved from services. To prove the said fact, he has examined PW.2-Administrative Officer of the DTDC Company. His evidence shows that, the salary of the petitioner/appellant was Rs.14,830/- per month because of accidental injuries, petitioner was relieved from his services.
13. To show the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner/appellant, he examined Dr. Veeresha U Mathad as PW.4. According to PW.4, in the said accident, as per the medical records, petitioner has sustained the following injuries:
"1. C4 vertebral body fracture.
2. Anterior listhesis of C3 over C4. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR
3. C3 to C5 spinal cord injury with oedema.
4. Left forearm both bones fracture.
5. Left wrist fracture.
6. Left lung atelectesis.
7. Left diaphragmatic palsy.
8. Right clavicle fracture."
14. Thus, as per the evidence of the doctor, the petitioner/appellant has suffered grievous injuries and the said injuries would definitely come in the way of his day- to-day activities. It is the opinion of the doctor that, the petitioner/appellant has suffered permanent global neurological disability of 50% and it has to be treated as whole body disability. While assessing the disability, the learned Tribunal has considered the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner/appellant as per the evidence of doctors examined as PW.4- Dr. Veeresha U Mathada and PW.5-Dr. Raju K.P. In para 27 of the impugned judgment, learned tribunal has narrated the injuries as under:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR "1. Left forearm both bones fracture and left distal radius fracture with distal radio-ulnar joint disruption.
2. Right clavicle fracture
3. Traumatic cervical cord injury (Asia Grade-C)
4. Brown-Sequard Syndrome
5. C4 vertebral body fracture
6. Left lung Atelectasis
7. Left Diaphragmatic palsy"
15. The learned Tribunal considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner/appellant has come to the conclusion that, to the right upper limb to the extent of 51% and 17% to the whole body.
16. The petitioner/appellant was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and he has suffered multiple injuries. Definitely these injuries must come in the way of his future prospects also. While assessing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospects. Because of the said accident, the petitioner/appellant has sustained 17% of disability to the whole body and with all frustrations, he has to survive.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR
17. In view of the injuries suffered by the petitioner/appellant, rightly the learned Tribunal has assessed his disability to the extent of 40% to the whole body. In my opinion, the said percentage of disability, assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. As held by the Tribunal, the monthly salary of the petitioner/appellant is Rs.14,830/- and as the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects, 40% of the income is to be added to assess his total income. Thus, the total monthly income of the petitioner/appellant would be Rs.20,762/- (Rs.14,830/- + Rs,5,932/-). It is to be multiplied with '12' to calculate annually. As the petitioner/appellant is aged 27 years, the proper multiplier as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 that is applicable is '17'. Thus, the loss of future income due to disability would be Rs.16,94,179/- (Rs.20,762 X 12 X 40/100 X 17).
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR
18. As per the medical reports, the petitioner/appellant has sustained multiple injuries and undergone treatment in various hospitals. He must have suffered a lot. Therefore, towards pain and suffering, whatever the Tribunal has awarded is just and proper i.e., Rs.1,00,000/-.
19. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges and the same requires no interference and it is just and proper.
20. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities to be enjoyed in the life. In view of the age of the petitioner/appellant at the time of the accident, nature of injuries suffered by him and also with all frustrations, inconvenience and discomfort, the petitioner/appellant has to survive and even these injuries may affect his marriage prospects also. So therefore, towards loss of amenities and marriage prospects, if
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR compensation is enhanced,it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, it is enhanced to Rs.80,000/-.///
21. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,31,200/- towards medical expenses as per the medical bills. The same requires no interference.
22. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards future medication. It is just and proper and no interference is required.
23. There is no award passed by the learned Tribunal towards loss of income during laid-up period. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that, he has produced photographs to show that, the petitioner/appellant is completely idle and he has become paralytic. In view of non-awarding of compensation to the petitioner/appellant and also the nature of injuries suffered, he must have been idled at least for a period of 5 months. Therefore, the income due to laid-up period is Rs.74,150/- (i.e., Rs.14,830 X 5). Thus, the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR petitioner/appellant is held entitled for compensation as under:
SL.No. Heads Amount in
Rs.
1. Towards loss of future 16,94,179/-
income
2. Towards pain and suffering 1,00,000/-
3. Towards attendant, 50,000/-
nourishment and
conveyance charges
4. Towards loss of amenities 80,000/-
and marriage prospects
5. Towards medical expenses 9,31,200/-
6. Towards future medication 1,50,000/-
7. Towards loss of income 74,150/-
during laid-up period
Total 30,79,529/-
24. Thus, the petitioner/appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,79,529/- as against Rs.24,91,400/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby there would be enhancement of compensation at Rs.5,88,129/- together with interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of this petition till its realization.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR
25. As liability is not disputed, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment before the Tribunal together with accrued interest.
26. With regard to the deposit and release of the compensation amount, the order of the Tribunal remains unaltered. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.6573/2018 dated 21.10.2019 passed by the III Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT at Bengaluru (SCCH-18), is hereby modified.
(iii) Appellant is entitled to total compensation of 30,79,529/- as against Rs.24,91,400/-awarded by the Tribunal thereby there would be enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,88,129/- together with interest at 6% p.a., on the enhanced
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:30166 MFA No. 3964 of 2021 HC-KAR compensation amount from the date of petition till its realization.
(iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment before the Tribunal together with accrued interest.
(v) With regard to the deposit and release of the amount, the order passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered.
(vi) There shall be modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34