Dheeraj v. Venkat R Gumpalli and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 203221 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN:

DHEERAJ S/O PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: WELDER, R/O: SAI NAGAR, NAUBAD BIDAR – 585 401. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1VENKAT R.GUMPALLI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, GVR INFRA TECH PVT LTD., GAYATRI MILLENNIUM APARTMENT, ARUNODAYA COLONY, MADHVPUR, RANGA REDDY – 500 081.

¶2THE MANAGER, FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE CODE, 15 FIRST FLOOR, D. NO.7-1-21A, APDL, ESTATE,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC-K:6962-DB( MFA(No.(203221(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( OPP:,COUNTRY,CLUB,,BEGUMPET,, HYDERABAD,–,500,016., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI,SUBHASH,MALLAPUR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2;, V/O,DATED,05.11.2025,NOTICE,TO,R1,IS,DISPENSED,WITH), , , THIS, MFA, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 173(1), OF, THE, MOTOR, VEHICLES, ACT,, PRAYING, TO, ALLOW, THE, APPEAL, MODIFY, THE, IMPUGNED, JUDGMENT, AND, , AWARD, DATED,

03.01.2024,PASSED,BY,THE,COURT,OF,THE,II,ADDL.,SENIOR, CIVIL,JUDGE,AND,JMFC,,AT,BIDAR,,IN,MVC,NO.,354/2022,AND, ENHANCE, THE, COMPENSATION, AS, PRAYED, FOR,, IN, THE, INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE.,, , , THIS, MFA,, COMING, ON, FOR, FURTHER, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.NARENDRA,PRASAD, ,AND,, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,TYAGARAJA,N.,INAVALLY, ( ORAL(JUDGMENT( (PER:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.T.NARENDRA,PRASAD)( , This, appeal, under,Section, 173(1), of, Motor,Vehicles, Act,,1988,(hereinafter,referred,to,as,'the,Act'),has,been, filed, by, the, claimant, challenging, the, judgment, dated,

03.01.2024, passed, by, II, Addl., Senior, Civil, Judge, and, JMFC,,Bidar,in,MVC,No.354/2022.,

2., Facts, giving, rise, to, the, filing, of, the, appeal, briefly, stated, are, that, on, 26.02.2022, the, claimant, was,

proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-38/W-9579 from Naubad to Hedgapur. When he reached near Hajnal cross on Nittur Hedgapur road at about 3.00 pm., at that time, car bearing registration No.TS-07/GE-2324 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant fell down, sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶3The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent significant amount towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and other related costs. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶4Upon service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶5On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.11,43,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶6The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions: a) Firstly, the claimant asserts that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing welding work in a workshop. He has examined the employer as PW.2 and he has produced salary certificate. However, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income as merely as Rs.14,000/- per month. b) Secondly, the claimant has examined Dr. Mallikarjun GB as PW-3. The Tribunal undervalued the claimant's

whole-body disability at 17%, contradicting the evidence of the doctor that the claimant suffered 49% disability. c) Lastly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 39 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation for under the head 'loss of amenities'. With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal.

¶7On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions: a) Firstly, even though the claimant has examined his employer-PW.2 but his employer has not produced any document to show that he was running a welding shop AK

Engineering Works and paying a salary of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant notionally. b) Secondly, the claimant has examined doctor as PW.3. In his evidence, he has deposed that the claimant has suffered 21% disability to lower left limb and 11% to the lower right limb and total he has assessed the disability to the extent of 49%. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 17%. c) Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference. With the above contentions, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶8Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶9It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 26.02.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶10The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has examined his employer as PW.2 and produced Ex.P19-salary certificate but he has not produced any bank statement to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. Since, he was working in AK Engineering as a skilled worker, considering his age and avocation, we are of the opinion that the monthly income of the claimant has to be considered as Rs.16,000/- per month.

¶11As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained CLW in the sub mantle region, abrasion over the right

eyebrow region and other injuries, fracture of right tibia and pulmonary embolism. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 17%. The claimant is aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,87,520/- (Rs.16,000*12*18*17%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶12The nature of injuries indicates that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Consequently, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.16,000 * 3 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'.

¶13Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. The claimant was hospitalized as an inpatient for more than 39 days in the hospital and subsequently received further

treatment. Considering the prolonged pain during treatment as well as the permanent disability certified by the doctor, we are inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and sufferings' from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and also, claimant is entitled for the compensation under the head 'loss of amenities' for Rs.40,000/-.

¶14Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶15Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Loss of future income 5,14,080 5,87,520 Loss of income during laid up period 2,802 48,000

Pain and sufferings 20,000 60,000 Loss of amenities - 40,000 Attendant 3,000 3,000 Medical expenses 5,23,529 5,23,529 Special diet food 20,000 20,000 Nourishment 20,000 20,000 Transportation 20,000 20,000 Future medical expenses 20,000 20,000 Total 11,43,411/- 13,42,049

¶16In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. c) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.13,42,049/-. d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of

realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. e) The deposit and release of amount shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

Sd/- (H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/- (TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY) JUDGE

SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37