ABHISHEK vs MRUDALARANI RANVEER REDDY AND ANR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202859 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.203269 OF 2023 (MV-I)
IN MFA No.202859/2022
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: JANATA SHOPPING CENTRE,
NAVI PET, SOLAPUR-413 007,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DR. JAWALI COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI-585 101,
(INSURER OF LORRY NO.MH-13/AX-4689).
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABHISHEK S/O MAHADEV BULLA,
AGE: 18 YEARS, STUDENT,
R/O. H.NO.5-1-11, HALE GUNJ,
BULLA NIVAS, STATION RAOD, BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585 330.
2. MRUDULARANI RANAVEER REDDY
D/O DAMANGEER,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA S
D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
R/O. POST SAI APARTMENT 64,
WAMAN NAGAR, JULE SOLAPUR-413 002,
MAHARASHTRA,
(OWNER OF TANKER NO.MH-13/AX-4689).
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VEERANI V. NANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN THE MVC NO.252/2016
OUT OF THE TWO CLUBBED CASES VIZ., MVC NO.251/2016
AND 252/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BIDAR,
SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT
AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2021 AND FIX THE LIABILITY ONLY
UPON THE ORIGINAL RESPONDENT NO.1 (RESPONDENT NO.2
HEREIN) AND REDUCE THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
AWARDED TO THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER.
IN MFA NO.203269/2023
BETWEEN:
ABHISHEK S/O MAHADEV BULLA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. H.NO.5-1-11, OLD GUNJ, BULLA NIVAS,
STATION ROAD, BHALKI, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEERANI V. NANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRUDALARANI RANVEER REDDY S/O DAMANGIR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. SAI APARTMENT 64, WAMAN NAGAR,
JOOLE SOLAPUR-04, MS.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, JANATA SHOPPING CENTER,
NAVI PETITIONER, SOLAPUR-413 007, MS,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DA JAVALI COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET, KALALBURAGI-585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 01.04.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.252/2016 ON
ND
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF 2 ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR, SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN.
B) MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.06.2021 IN MVC NO.252/2016 PASSED BY THE COURT
ND
OF 2 ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR,
SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE PRESENT APPEAL THEREBY ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.5,09,000/- TO RS.17,00,000/- AS
CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT APPEALAND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DISPOSALS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
ORAL JUDGMENT
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.203269 of 2023 is filed
by Abhishek son of Mahadev Bulla, questioning the legality
and correctness of the judgment passed by the II
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at
Basavakalyan, in MVC No.252 of 2016.
2. The present appellant - Abhishek, was the
petitioner, while the present first respondent,
Smt. Mrudalarani Ranveer Reddy, and the present second
respondent, United India Insurance Company, were
respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively, before the
Tribunal.
3. The connected Miscellaneous First Appeal
No.202859 of 2022 is filed by United India Insurance
Company, questioning the legality and correctness of the
very same judgment passed in MVC No.252 of 2016.
4. The Tribunal, by its judgment dated
10.06.2021, disposed of MVC No.252 of 2016. Since
Abhishek and United India Insurance Company have filed
these two appeals challenging the same judgment, they
are taken up together and disposed of by this common
judgment.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
5. For the sake of convenience and clarity, and to
avoid confusion, Abhishek, the appellant in MFA
No.203269 of 2023, is hereinafter referred to as the
“petitioner”, while United India Insurance Company, the
appellant in MFA No.202859 of 2022, is hereinafter
referred to as the “Insurance Company”.
6. The facts leading to these appeals are as
follows:
(i) On 02.05.2015, Abhishek, along with Rupesh,
Anita Patil, Sayyad Sarfaraz and Aditya, was travelling in a
car bearing registration No.KA-24/AX-6217 towards Pune
on National Highway No.9 at about 7:00 p.m. It is the
case of Abhishek that when the car reached near Kurli
Talmud village, a tanker bearing registration No.MH-
13/AX-4689 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending
vehicle” for brevity), driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner and at high speed, came from the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
opposite direction and dashed against the car in which
Abhishek and four others were travelling.
(ii) It is the further case of Abhishek that he
sustained severe injuries in the accident, while the other
occupants of the car died at the spot. Immediately after
the accident, he was shifted to Solapur Hospital, where he
was admitted as an inpatient and received treatment from
02.05.2015 to 15.05.2015.
(iii) Abhishek contends that, at the time of the
accident, he was about 12 years old and studying in the
seventh standard. He further contends that he incurred
substantial medical expenses but, despite treatment, could
not recover completely. According to him, the injuries
have resulted in a loss of physical strength and earning
capacity and have left him disabled.
(iv) Abhishek further contends that the accident
occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle. On these grounds, he filed MVC
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
No.252/2016 before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of
Rs.17,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum.
7. Upon presentation, the claim petition was
registered and notices were issued to the respondents,
namely Smt. Mrudalarani Ranveer Reddy and United India
Insurance Company Limited. Both respondents entered
appearance and filed their respective written statements.
8. The respondent No.1 Smt. Mrudalarani Ranveer
Reddy specifically denied the material allegations made in
the claim petition. She contended that the driver of the
car had driven it rashly and negligently, lost control over
the vehicle and thereby caused the accident. On this
ground, she denied her liability to pay compensation.
9. Per contra , the Insurance Company specifically
denied that the tanker bearing registration No.MH-13/AX-
4689 was insured with it. It also denied the material
allegations made in the claim petition. Further, the
Insurance Company contended that the driver of the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective
driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore,
disputed its liability to pay compensation. It further
alleged that the owner of the offending vehicle and the
petitioner had colluded to institute a false claim against
the driver of the offending vehicle. On these and other
grounds, the Insurance Company sought dismissal of the
claim petition.
10. Upon completion of the pleadings, the learned
Tribunal framed three issues for its consideration.
Thereafter, the Tribunal afforded the parties reasonable
opportunities to adduce evidence. The record discloses
that Abhishek was a minor at the time of the accident and
was, therefore, represented by his mother, Smt. Sunita
wife of Mahadev. The said Smt. Sunita, being the mother
and next friend of Abhishek, examined herself as P.W.2. In
addition, the petitioner examined Dr. Rajendra Kotari as
P.W.3. The petitioner got marked nine documents as Exs.
P.37 to P.45.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
11. It is relevant to note that the parents of
Rupesh, who died in the same accident, had also filed a
claim petition seeking compensation, which was registered
as MVC No.251 of 2016. In the said proceedings, Smt.
Shashikala examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked
documents as Exs.P.1 to P.36. Accordingly, the documents
pertaining to the injured claimant, Abhishek, were marked
as Exs. P.37 to P.45 in the MVC No.252/2016.
12. Per contra, the second respondent-Insurance
Company examined one of its officials, Sri Subhash, as
R.W.1 and got the insurance policy marked as Ex.R.1.
13. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the learned
Tribunal heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
Abhishek and the learned counsel for United India
Insurance Company. Thereafter, by its judgment dated
10.06.2021, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.5,09,000/- to Abhishek, together with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
Tribunal also fastened the liability to satisfy the award on
the Insurance Company.
14. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the injured
claimant, Abhishek, filed MFA No.203269 of 2023,
principally questioning the adequacy of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Per contra, United India
Insurance Company filed MFA No.202859 of 2022,
principally contending that the liability to satisfy the award
ought not to have been fastened on it.
15. The learned counsel for the injured claimant
would contend that the impugned judgment and award
suffer from serious irregularities and have been passed
without proper application of judicial mind. Hence, the
same cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. He
further contends that the impugned judgment and award
are the result of misreading and non-appreciation of the
material available on record. According to him, the
Tribunal failed to appreciate the real controversy involved
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
in the matter and arrived at findings contrary to the
interests of the injured claimant, Abhishek. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and award warrant interference by
this Court.
16. The learned counsel for Abhishek further
contends that the injured claimant sustained multiple
grievous injuries and that the doctor, examined as P.W.3,
issued a disability certificate assessing his permanent
physical impairment at 47% of the whole body. However,
the learned Tribunal reduced the whole-body disability to
23.5% without properly appreciating the evidence on
record. On this ground also, the impugned judgment and
award warrant interference by this Court.
17. The learned counsel for the injured claimant
further contends that the Tribunal, without properly
appreciating the evidence of the doctor, awarded global
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- by relying on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjuna v.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
Divisional Manager . He also contends that the Tribunal
erred in considering the medical bills dated 04.05.2015,
08.05.2015, 11.05.2015 and 13.05.2015. On these
grounds, among others, he seeks modification of the
impugned judgment and award and enhancement of
compensation in accordance with law.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, would contend
that the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle
shown as the offending vehicle do not tally with the
particulars mentioned in the IMV report marked as
Ex.P.11.
19. The learned counsel further contends that the
insurance policy, marked as Ex.D.1 and also referred to as
Ex.P.9, pertains to a vehicle manufactured in 2013,
bearing engine No.0003050 and chassis No.CFDP002944.
However, according to him, the registration certificate
marked as Ex.P.10, though disclosing a matching engine
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
number, mentions a different chassis number, namely
SHRC1596815.
20. He further contends that the particulars
mentioned in the vehicle permit marked as Ex.P.12 are
also inconsistent with those appearing in the other
documents. According to the learned counsel, the permit
mentions engine No.40095OD002389 and chassis No.
MEC2241CDP002277. It is, therefore, contended that the
Tribunal failed to properly consider the discrepancies in the
engine and chassis numbers appearing in the relevant
documents. On this ground, the learned counsel submits
that the impugned judgment and award warrant
interference by this Court.
21. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
further contends that, in view of the aforesaid
discrepancies, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the
liability to satisfy the award on the owner of the offending
vehicle instead of the Insurance Company. However, the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
Tribunal failed to do so. Hence, the learned counsel seeks
interference with the impugned judgment and award.
22. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
further contends that the amounts mentioned in the
second, sixth and thirteenth bills under Ex.P.39, as well as
the amounts mentioned in Exs.P.16 and P.17, had already
been adjusted in the final bill. However, the learned
Tribunal failed to notice this fact and erroneously
considered the said amounts while determining the
compensation. According to the learned counsel, the total
of the aforesaid amounts comes to Rs.1,05,309/-, which
ought to have been deducted from the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Had the said amount been
deducted, the compensation would have worked out to
Rs.4,04,691/-. On these grounds, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company seeks dismissal of the appeal filed
by the injured claimant, Abhishek, and prayed for allowing
the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
23. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the injured claimant, Abhishek, and the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company.
24. As stated above, Rupesh died in the accident
that occurred on 02.05.2015. His parents filed MVC
No.251 of 2016 seeking compensation for his death. It is
necessary to reiterate that the learned Tribunal, by its
common judgment dated 10.06.2021, awarded
compensation to the parents of Rupesh as well as to the
present injured claimant, Abhishek.
25. It is further relevant to note that the parents of
Rupesh filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation, while the
Insurance Company filed a connected appeal seeking
exoneration from liability to pay compensation. The
learned counsel for the injured claimant, Abhishek, has
produced a certified copy of the judgment passed by the
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
Division Bench of this Court in the appeals filed by the
parents of Rupesh and the Insurance Company.
26. Even in the said connected appeals, namely,
MFA No.201445 of 2022 and MFA No.200046 of 2022,
Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel for United India
Insurance Company, had raised contentions regarding the
discrepancies in the engine and chassis numbers
mentioned in the insurance policy, IMV report and other
relevant documents.
27. Upon considering the said contentions, the
Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated
21.06.2023, directed the Insurance Company to pay
compensation to the parents of Rupesh, while reserving
liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount
so paid from the owner of the offending vehicle.
28. When the learned counsel for the injured
claimant, Abhishek, produced the said judgment before
this Court, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
did not dispute its correctness. Nor did he contend that the
Insurance Company had subsequently challenged the
judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the
same had been set aside or modified.
29. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that it is unnecessary to
undertake a separate discussion regarding the alleged
discrepancies in the engine and chassis numbers
appearing in the IMV report, insurance policy and
registration certificate. Further, once the just
compensation payable to the injured claimant, Abhishek, is
determined, directing the Insurance Company to satisfy
the award, with liberty to recover the amount from the
owner of the offending vehicle, would adequately address
the issue of liability and be consistent with judicial
discipline.
30. In view of the above, this Court now proceeds
to examine whether the compensation awarded by the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
Tribunal to the injured claimant, Abhishek is in accordance
with the settled legal principles and can
be regarded as just compensation. The medical evidence
on record shows that PW-3, the doctor, has assessed the
permanent physical impairment of the petitioner Abhishek
at 47% to the whole body. At paragraph 39, page 37 of
the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has
reassessed the whole-body disability of the petitioner at
23.5%.
31. Further, the learned Tribunal has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Master Mallikarjuna v. Divisional Manager, National
Insurance Company Limited and Another , rendered in
Civil Appeal No.7139 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No.
1676 of 2012) . Relying on the said judgment, the learned
Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner has sustained a
whole-body disability of slightly less than 30%.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner Abhishek, apart from the
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
amounts awarded towards attendant charges, medical
expenses and other conventional heads.
32. The said conclusion of the learned Tribunal is
seriously disputed by the learned advocate for the
claimant Abhishek. The learned advocate would contend
that the petitioner has sustained a serious head injury and
fractures, and that the doctor has specifically assessed his
whole-body disability at 47%. Therefore, according to the
learned advocate, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the
said assessment of 47% as the whole-body disability of
the petitioner.
33. It is further submitted by the learned advocate
for the claimant that, had the learned Tribunal assigned
valid and acceptable reasons for reassessing and reducing
the permanent physical impairment assessed by the
doctor, the matter might have stood on a different footing.
However, the learned Tribunal has made no such effort.
On the contrary, it has concluded, without assigning any
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
reasons, that only 50% of the disability assessed by the
doctor should be taken as the whole-body disability.
According to the learned advocate, such a conclusion has
no legal basis and, therefore, warrants interference by this
Court.
34. Per contra, the learned advocate for the
insurance company would contend that, although the
learned Tribunal has not expressly stated the reasons for
its conclusion, the very fact that it has reassessed the
whole-body disability of the petitioner at 23.5% is
sufficient to conclude that the petitioner is not entitled to
any further enhancement of compensation.
35. Since the learned advocates for the claimant
and the insurance company have advanced rival
contentions regarding the medical evidence, it is
incumbent upon this Court to examine the medical
evidence on record.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
36. The petitioner Abhishek has produced the
medico-legal certificate issued by Samshodhan Kendra,
Nemetha, Solapur. It is relevant to note that, soon after
the accident, the petitioner was admitted to a hospital at
Solapur. Ex. P-37, the medico-legal certificate, records six
injuries sustained by the petitioner.
37. The first injury is an abrasion over the right
leg, measuring 1 cm × 4 cm, which the doctor has
classified as simple. An abrasion is an injury in which the
skin is scraped due to friction against a rough surface,
such as a road.
38. The second injury is an abrasion over the right
foot, measuring 0.5 cm × 1 cm, which is also classified as
simple.
39. The third injury is described as a blunt head
injury. Ex.P-37 further records that the CT scan revealed a
subdural haemorrhage. Although the doctor has classified
this injury as simple, the medical significance of a subdural
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
haemorrhage cannot be overlooked. It refers to bleeding
into the space between the dura mater and the brain.
Depending upon its extent and clinical significance, such
bleeding may constitute a serious head injury requiring
specialist assessment. However, in the present case, the
doctor has classified the injury as simple. Be that as it
may.
40. The fourth injury is described as a C.L.W.
measuring 0.2 cm × 1 cm over the left eyebrow. C.L.W.
denotes a contused lacerated wound, which is a wound
caused by blunt force and may have irregular margins.
41. The fifth injury is tenderness over the left
knee. The X-ray examination revealed a displaced fracture
of the distal shaft of the left femur. In other words, the
petitioner had sustained a fracture of the thigh bone near
the knee, with displacement of the fractured bone
fragments. Such an injury may require surgical
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
intervention, including fixation with an appropriate
implant.
42. The sixth injury is described as a blunt injury to
the chest and abdomen. Ex.P-37 further records that the
CT scan of the thorax revealed a post-traumatic contusion
of the lingular segment of the left lung. In other words,
the petitioner had sustained bruising of the lung tissue.
The CT scan of the abdomen also revealed a contusion of
segment-V of the right lobe of the liver. Thus, the
petitioner had sustained injuries to both the lung and the
liver, which are internal organs, due to blunt force to the
chest and abdomen.
43. The doctor's opinion is recorded at the bottom
of Ex.P-37. The doctor has classified injuries Nos.1, 2 and
3 as simple and injuries Nos.4, 5 and 6 as grievous. In the
preceding paragraphs of this judgment, this Court has
observed that a subdural haemorrhage may also have to
be considered a grievous injury, depending upon its
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
medical significance. However, since the doctor who
examined the petitioner has classified the said injury as
simple, this Court, for the purpose of the present
discussion, will proceed on that basis.
44. Thus, Ex.P-37 establishes that the petitioner
Abhishek sustained multiple injuries in the accident,
comprising three injuries classified as grievous and three
classified as simple. The injuries to the lung and liver are
particularly relevant, as they demonstrate that the
petitioner had also sustained injuries to internal organs.
Having regard to the nature and number of injuries, the
petitioner must have undergone considerable pain and
suffering. Nevertheless, merely by perusing Ex.P-37, it is
not possible to determine whether the petitioner has
sustained any permanent physical impairment.
45. The record further shows that Ex.P-38 is the
disability certificate issued by Kothari Hospital, Kalaburagi,
through Dr. R. P. Kothari. At page 1 of the said exhibit,
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
the doctor has recorded the history of events in
chronological order, explaining the circumstances that led
to the petitioner undergoing medical treatment. Since the
occurrence of the accident is not in dispute, it is
unnecessary to discuss those details once again.
46. Ex.P-38 further reveals that Dr. R. P. Kothari
th
assessed the disability of the petitioner Abhishek on 13
November, 2018. It is relevant to note that the accident
nd
occurred on 2 May, 2015. Thus, the disability
assessment was made more than three years after the
accident. This Court is conscious of the fact that the mere
passage of more than three years between the date of the
accident and the assessment of disability is not, by itself, a
sufficient ground to disbelieve the disability certificate.
47. Ex.P-38 also reveals that, at page 1, the doctor
has recorded the difficulties reported by the petitioner
when he appeared for the assessment of his disability.
This Court is conscious that the difficulties reported by a
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
patient and the medical findings recorded by the doctor
must be examined together while determining the extent
of permanent physical impairment. The assessment of
disability, therefore, requires consideration of the medical
evidence in its entirety, rather than acceptance or
rejection of the percentage mentioned in the certificate in
isolation. Further, the possibility of the petitioner Abhishek
exaggerating his difficulties cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, this Court proceeds to examine the other
information available in the disability certificate, Ex.P-38.
48. At page 2 of Ex.P-38, under the heading “On
Examination,” the doctor has recorded the following
findings:
“1. The patient understands routine commands.
2. His pulse, respiration and temperature are
within normal limits.
3. A healed wound measuring approximately
two inches is noted on the left side of the
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
occipital region, with depression and
tenderness over and around the wound.
4. Neck stiffness is noted, and leftward turning
of the neck is painful and restricted.
5. Flexion and extension of the neck are
restricted to five degrees.
6. Postural giddiness is noted.
7. Redness and watering of the left eye are
noted.
8. Tenderness is noted over the superior and
lateral margins of the left orbit.
9. Mild swelling and tenderness are noted over
the left knee joint.
10. Valgus deformity of the left knee, described
as genu valgus, is noted.
11. Fixed flexion deformity of 30 degrees is
noted.
12. Shortening of the left leg by half an inch is
noted.
13. Medial rotation of the hip joint is restricted
to two to three degrees and is painful.”
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
49. The findings recorded by the doctor under the
heading “On Examination” indicate that, even more than
three years after the accident, the injured claimant
Abhishek was experiencing certain residual difficulties.
However, the nature and extent of their effect on his daily
activities require further examination.
50. Ex.P-38 further records that the recent skull X-
ray showed no fracture and that the CT scan of the
cervical spine was within normal limits (WNL). The CT scan
of the abdomen revealed a contusion of the right lobe of
the liver. The doctor has also recorded that, at the time of
admission, the CT scan of the brain revealed subdural
haemorrhage (SDH) in the prepontine cistern,
cerebellopontine angle (CP angle), quadrigeminal plate
and posterior fossa, together with intraventricular bleeding
in the left occipital horn and cerebral oedema. The MRI
scan revealed subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) in the
bilateral parietal regions. Further, the doctor has recorded
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
that the X-ray of the left femur revealed a fracture of the
lower one-third of its shaft.
51. These medical findings indicate that the
petitioner Abhishek had sustained significant head injuries,
in addition to the fracture of the left femur and other
injuries. They also suggest that he may have experienced
considerable pain and inconvenience during the course of
treatment and recovery.
52. Nevertheless, this Court is conscious that the
mere existence of medical findings or the use of technical
medical terminology is not, by itself, sufficient to
determine the extent of permanent physical impairment. It
is necessary to understand the medical significance of the
conditions recorded by the doctor and, more importantly,
whether they have resulted in any lasting functional
limitations affecting the petitioner's ordinary activities and
quality of life. Therefore, this Court proceeds to examine
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
the relevant medical terminology and the residual
consequences of the injuries sustained by the petitioner.
53. The disability certificate, Ex.P-38, records genu
valgum (valgus deformity of the knee). The medical
meaning of the same is that the knee is angled inwards,
giving the leg a knock-kneed appearance.
54. Another medical term used by the doctor is
“ fixed flexion deformity of 30 degrees .” This means
that the knee remains bent at approximately 30 degrees
and cannot be fully straightened.
55. Further, the doctor has mentioned in the
disability certificate that the petitioner Abhishek had
sustained SAH in the bilateral parietal regions. SAH stands
for subarachnoid haemorrhage. It refers to bleeding into
the space between the arachnoid and pia mater, which are
the membranes covering the brain. The pia mater is the
innermost membrane covering the brain, whereas the
arachnoid mater is the middle membrane. A membrane is
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
a thin layer of tissue that covers and protects the
underlying structures.
56. The expression “ bilateral parietal regions ”
refers to the parietal regions on both sides of the brain.
The parietal lobes participate in processing sensory
information, understanding the position of body parts and
awareness. Bleeding in these regions may be associated
with neurological complications, depending on its extent
and the structures affected. However, the presence of
such bleeding does not, by itself, establish permanent
neurological disability.
57. Further, the doctor has mentioned in the
disability certificate that the petitioner sustained an
intraventricular bleed in the left occipital horn,
accompanied by brain oedema. This expression contains
three important medical terms. The first is
“ intraventricular bleed ,” which means bleeding into the
ventricles, which are cavities inside the brain containing
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
cerebrospinal fluid. The second is “ left occipital horn ,”
which refers to the posterior extension of the left lateral
ventricle, situated towards the back of the brain. The third
is “ brain oedema ,” which means swelling of the brain
tissue.
58. These findings indicate that the petitioner
Abhishek had sustained bleeding within the ventricular
system and swelling of the brain at the time of the injury.
Such findings may indicate a significant head injury.
However, the extent of the bleeding, the degree of
swelling and any lasting consequences cannot be
determined from these findings alone.
59. However, the aforesaid medical conditions
recorded in the disability certificate, Ex.P-38, cannot be
ignored as inconsequential. On the contrary, due
importance must be given to these findings while
appreciating the nature and consequences of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner.
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
60. However, the record further indicates that the
petitioner has produced an X-ray of his ankle joint and an
X-ray of his spine. Exs.P-44 and P-45 are photographs of
the petitioner Abhishek. These photographs show an
orthopaedic fixation device applied to his left lower limb
for the treatment of the fracture. These documents
provide further material for appreciating the nature of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment
undergone by him.
61. The record further reveals that the petitioner
Abhishek has produced relevant medical documents issued
by Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya and Research Centre,
Solapur. These documents include a CT scan report of the
cervical spine, an MRI report of the brain with screening of
the cervical spine, and a CT scan report of the head.
62. A perusal of these reports shows that the
medical findings recorded in the disability certificate,
Ex.P-38, are also reflected in the relevant CT scan and MRI
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
reports. These documents form part of Ex.P-41. It is
relevant to note that as many as 23 pages containing
various medical documents have been marked collectively
as Ex. P-41.
63. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, when the MRI and CT scan reports have been
produced on record and the findings therein support the
medical history and observations recorded in the disability
certificate, the same constitute relevant evidence for
determining the nature and extent of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner. Nevertheless, the question
whether these injuries have resulted in permanent
physical impairment, and if so, to what extent, must be
determined by considering the medical evidence as a
whole, including the clinical findings and the functional
limitations, if any, that continue to affect the petitioner.
64. However, the record shows that the petitioner
Abhishek has not examined any orthopaedic surgeon to
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
speak about the lower-limb disability sustained by him. In
the absence of such evidence, it is difficult to accept the
claimant's contention that he has sustained 47% disability.
65. It is true that the doctor has assessed the
whole-body disability of the petitioner at 47%. It is
relevant to recollect that the learned Tribunal has
reassessed the whole-body disability of the petitioner
Abhishek at 23.5%. It is also a fact that the learned
Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for reducing the
percentage of disability assessed by the doctor.
66. Nevertheless, this Court has made an attempt,
to the best of its ability, to appreciate the medical
evidence and assess the nature and extent of the medical
problems experienced by the petitioner. This Court has
ultimately concluded that the injuries sustained by the
petitioner Abhishek cannot be ignored as inconsequential.
On the contrary, the injuries are likely to affect his day-to-
day activities.
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
67. However, in the absence of evidence from a
surgeon, it is difficult to determine the precise extent of
the functional disability sustained by the petitioner. Having
regard to these facts and circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that assessing the whole-body disability of the
petitioner Abhishek at 35% would meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly, the whole-body disability of the
petitioner Abhishek is assessed at 35%.
68. It is necessary to recollect that the learned
Tribunal has followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Master Mallikarjuna ( supra ). However,
subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, Hitesh Nagjibhai
Patel vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari and another
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3446 had an occasion
to reconsider and revisit the said principle.
69. This Court has carefully gone through the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
Patel ( supra ). At paragraph No.9 of the said judgment, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“9. ….. It is now a well-entrenched and
consistently reiterated principle of law that a
minor child who suffers death or permanent
disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be
placed in the same category as a non-earning
individual for the purposes of assessing the
amount of compensation because the child was
not engaged in gainful employment at the time
of the accident. In such a case, the computation
of compensation under the head of loss of
income ought to be made by adopting, at the
very least, the minimum wages payable to a
skilled workman as notified for the relevant
period in the respective State where the cause
of action arises. …..”
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
70. In view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), this Court is
required to reassess the income of the injured boy,
namely, Abhishek. Though the injured boy was a minor at
the time of the accident, his income is required to be
assessed by taking the minimum wages prescribed for a
skilled workman as the benchmark, and the compensation
is required to be computed accordingly.
71. The next question that arises for consideration
is as to what were the minimum wages payable to a skilled
workman in the State of Karnataka during the year 2015.
In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in MFA
No.4793/2016 C/w MFA No.4556/2016 in the case of
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs. E.C.
Asha , has specifically held that the minimum wages
prescribed for skilled labour and the notional income fixed
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority are
almost equal. Therefore, whenever Court concerned is
required to assess the income of the minor victim by
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
taking the minimum wages prescribed for skilled labour as
the benchmark, the notional income fixed by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority can be safely
adopted.
72. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the income of the injured boy can be assessed
on the basis of the notional income chart published by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the said
chart, the notional income for the year 2015 is fixed at
Rs.8,000/- per month. Further, as the injured boy was
below 15 years of age at the time of the accident, the
appropriate multiplier applicable, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is 18.
73. Before proceeding further, this Court is also
required to consider the addition to be made towards
future prospects. In the preceding paragraphs of this
judgment, this Court has concluded that the injured boy
has sustained 35% permanent physical impairment. In
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Pappu and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another
[ C.A.No.20962/2017, decided on 19.01.2018 and Sidram
vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported
in 2023 (3) SCC 439 , the Courts are required to make an
addition to the assessed income of the injured victim
towards future prospects. In the said decisions, the
Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down in
National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi reported
in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . Therefore, 40% of the assessed
income of the injured boy is required to be added towards
future prospects.
74. As stated above, the notional income prescribed
for the year 2015 was Rs.8,000/- per month. 40% of
Rs.8,000/- works out to Rs.3,200-. On adding these two
amounts, the total monthly income works out to
Rs.11,200/-. The said amount shall be taken as the
monthly income of the injured boy for the purpose of
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
computing compensation under the head of loss of future
income.
75. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another
[(CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.10383 of 2007)] , when an injured person himself files
a petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained
by him, no deduction towards personal and living
expenses is warranted. Therefore, out of the aforesaid
monthly income of Rs.11,200/-, no amount is required to
be deducted towards personal and living expenses, as is
ordinarily done in cases involving death. Accordingly, the
entire monthly income of Rs.11,200/- shall be taken into
consideration while assessing the compensation.
76. The monthly income of Rs.11,200/-, when
multiplied by 12, works out to Rs.1,34,400/- per annum.
The said amount represents the annual income of the
injured boy for the purpose of computing the loss of future
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
income. As stated above, the appropriate multiplier is 18.
Therefore, on multiplying the annual income of
Rs.1,34,400/- by the multiplier of 18, the total works out
to Rs.24,19,200/-.
77. It is necessary to reiterate that the injured boy
has sustained 35% permanent physical impairment of the
whole body. 35% of Rs.24,19,200/- works out to
Rs.8,46,720/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.8,46,720/- is
awarded to the injured boy under the head of ‘loss of
future income due to permanent physical impairment’.
78. The record also shows that the petitioner,
nd
namely, Abhishek, was an inpatient from 2 May, 2015 to
th
15 May, 2015, for a period of 14 days. Further, in the
preceding paragraphs of this judgment, this Court has
discussed the various medical difficulties experienced by
the petitioner on account of the accidental injuries. There
is no necessity to reiterate those difficulties once again.
However, the aforesaid facts and circumstances make it
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
clear that the petitioner must have undergone
considerable pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal has
not awarded any amount under the head of pain and
suffering. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and the period of
hospitalisation, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of
Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded under the head of
‘pain and suffering’ and a further sum of Rs.40,000/-
under the head of ‘loss of amenities’. The said amounts
would meet the ends of justice. In addition, a sum of
Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards transportation expenses,
Rs.20,000/- towards food and nourishment, and
Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges and other
incidental expenses during the treatment and recovery
period.
79. The insurance company has specifically
contended that a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- reflected in the
final bill has been claimed twice by the petitioner and,
therefore, the said amount is required to be deducted. It is
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
relevant to note that, at pages 37 and 38 of the impugned
judgment, the learned Tribunal has considered the said
contention and concluded that it was contrary to the
materials available on record. Accordingly, the learned
Tribunal declined to accept the contention of the insurance
company. This Court has also carefully examined the
entire material available on record and finds no sufficient
basis to accept the said contention. Hence, the contention
of the insurance company in this regard is rejected.
80. On re-assessment and re-determination of
compensation, the petitioner is entitled for following
compensation:
Sl.
Compensation
Compensation
NO.
Heads
awarded by
awarded by this
the Tribunal
Court
1. Pain and suffering -- Rs.30,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.1,83,527/- Rs.1,83,527/-
3. Loss of future
earning on
account of
permanent
disability
Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.8,46,720/-
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
4. Loss of earning
during laid up
period
Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
5. Loss of amenities -- Rs.40,000/-
6. Transport charges -- Rs.15,000/-
7. Food and
-- Rs.20,000/-
Nourishment
8. Attendant charges
and other
incidental
expenses
-- Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.5,08,527/- Rs.11,85,247/-
Rounded off to Rs.5,09,000/- Rs.11,85,300/-
Rs.6,76,300/-
Enhanced
compensation
81. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the appellant-claimant in
MFA No.203269/2023 is allowed in part.
ii. The appeal filed by the appellant - insurance
company in MFA No.202859/2022 is dismissed .
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
iii. The judgment and award passed by Tribunal in
MVC No.252/2016 is modified to the aforesaid
extent.
iv. The appellant/petitioner shall be entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.6,76,300/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of claim petition till its realization.
v. It is made clear that the appellant/petitioner
shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed
period of 408 days in preferring the appeal in
view of this Court’s order dated 01.04.2024.
vi. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of
this judgment, with liberty to recover the
amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11321
MFA No. 202859 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 203269 of 2023
CNR: KAHC030029972022
vii. The deposit and release of the enhanced
compensation shall be as per the order of the
Tribunal.
Sd/-
(BRUNGESH M)
JUDGE
BL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
CT: AK