CHETHANA vs PRADEEP ACHAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
R
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1405 OF 2021
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
CHETHANA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
W/O PRADEEP ACHAR,
REP. BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER
LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMA CHANDRA SHERIGAR
R/O MAKKI MANE, CHURCH ROAD,
KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 217.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRADEEP ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SEETHARAM ACHAR,
TH
R/O H NO.219 A, 4 WARD,
OMBATDANDIGE ROAD,
KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, KUNDAPURA
ND
2 FLOOR, SRI. SAI CENTRE,
MAIN ROAD, KUNDAPURA - 576 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
Digitally signed by
SUMATHY KANNAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNTAKA
1
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
17.06.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.794/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
KUNDAPURA, TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWED CLAIM AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU )
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment
and Award dated 17.06.2020 in M.V.C.No.794/2016
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT,
Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned
Award’). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.11,12,187/- to the appellant/claimant with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realisation.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant
seeking enhancement of the amounts awarded. Notice to
2
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver was dispensed with by
this Court by an order dated 15.09.2021 since no relief
was claimed against him.
3. The brief facts that are relevant in the case are that
on 27.01.2016, the appellant/claimant was travelling as a
pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-
20-EF-7439 being driven by her husband. When the
motorcycle reached near Thekkatte Village on NH-66, the
rider of the motorcycle lost control and fell on the road.
Due to the impact, the appellant/claimant sustained
grievous injuries and was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal
and treated as an in-patient for fractures, head injury and
nerve injuries. It was stated that she spent a sum of
Rs.6,50,000/- on treatment, food, medicine, attendant
charges and required a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for
future treatment. The claim petition also set out that she
was working as Post Office Incharge and also doing
tailoring work and was also a housewife and was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and due to the injuries sustained
by her, she is not in a position to do any sort of work in
3
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
future in view of the fact that she has suffered a
permanent disablement.
4. Notice of the petition was served to the respondents.
Since the respondent No.1/Owner-driver did not appear,
he was placed as exparte and the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company contested the matter. The
averments of the petition were denied and it was stated
that the compensation claimed by the appellant/claimant
is exorbitant and speculative. The respondent
No.2/Insurance Company also claimed that the rider was
not riding in a rash and negligent manner and that there
was no fault on the part of the rider qua the accident.
5. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the
following Issues were framed by the Learned Tribunal:
“ISSUES
“1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had
sustained injuries in a road traffic accident alleged
to have taken place on 27.01.2016 at about 9.00
a.m., near Grace Auditorium, Thekkatte Village,
NH-66, Kundapura Taluk, due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EF-7439?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the
rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-EF-
4
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
7439 had no valid and effective driving licence to
ride the said vehicle at the time of accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From
whom?
4. What Order or Award?”
6. The mother of the appellant/claimant was examined
as PW-1 and one eye-witness as PW-2. The Doctor who
treated the appellant/claimant namely Dr. Vinod Kumar
from the Department of Neurosurgery at KMC Hospital,
was directed to give evidence and his deposition was
recorded under commission, on 15.09.2018, which was
marked as Exhibit C1 by the learned Tribunal. One
hundred and eleven (111) documents were marked in
evidence as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-111, which included the FIR
(Ex.P1), complaint (Ex.P2), spot mahazar (Ex.P3), wound
certificate (Ex.P4), AIR report (Ex.P5), Hospital and
medical bills (Ex.P6 to 49 & Ex.P51 to 93), Disability
Certificate (Ex.P94) and Discharge Summary (Ex.P95 to
99).
7. Based on the evidence adduced by the parties, the
learned Tribunal found that PW-2/eye-witness to the
5
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
accident has deposed that he has witnessed the accident
from a close distance of about 50 feet and the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
motorcycle. In addition, based on the FIR and complaint,
the learned Tribunal found that the Jurisdictional police
have registered a case against respondent No.1 who is the
rider and the owner of the vehicle. Thus, it was held that
the rash and negligent riding was proved.
8. On the other issues, the learned Tribunal after
examining the Wound Certificate, found that the
appellant/claimant had sustained several injuries. The
Doctor who treated the appellant/claimant whose
deposition is found at Exhibit C1 with respect of the
Neuropsychological assessment of the appellant/claimant
reveals that the appellant/claimant would have difficulty in
carrying out her daily activities. The disability as held by
the Doctor was 82.25% to the whole body, which was
stated to be permanent in nature. However, the learned
Tribunal has held that the neuropsychological disability
6
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
and disability due to convulsion affecting the functional
disability of the appellant/claimant would not more than
40%. It was further held that since the appellant/claimant
was 25 years, applying the multiplier of ‘17’ and taking the
monthly income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.8,000/-,
the compensation towards ‘loss of income due to disability’
was calculated as:
8000 x 12 x 17 x 40% = Rs.6,52,800/-.
8.1 In addition, compensation was awarded towards ‘pain
and suffering’, ‘future medical expenses and expenses of
care taker’, ‘conveyance, diet and attendant charges’, ‘loss
of income during laid up period’, ‘future medical expenses’
and ‘loss of amenities of life’ in the following amounts:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of income due to disability 6,52,800-00
(8000 x 12 x 17 x 40%)
2 Towards pain and suffering 75,000-00
3 Towards medical expenses 1,52,387-00
4 Towards conveyance, diet and 50,000-00
attendant charges
5 Towards loss of income during 32,000-00
laid up period
6 Towards Future Medical Expenses 1,00,000-00
and expenses of care taker
7
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
7 Loss of amenities of life 50,000-00
TOTAL 11,12,187-00
8.2 Thus, an amount of Rs.11,12,187/- along with
interest at 6% per annum was awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
9. The challenge in the present appeal is by the
appellant/injured herself. The learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant submits that given the nature of the
injuries of the appellant/claimant and that fact that she is
mentally and physically disabled permanently, the Doctor
had assessed the permanent disability at 82.25%.
However, the learned Tribunal wrongly awarded the
disability at 40%. In addition, the appellant/claimant was
hospitalised for five times and was admitted as an in-
patient totally for 42 days and was under regular followup
treatment for at least 10 times in the “out-patient”
department. The amounts awarded towards ‘pain and
suffering’ and ‘conveyance diet and attendant charges’ are
meagre. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
8
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
contends that given the fact that the evidence has
revealed that the appellant/claimant will be unable to take
care of herself throughout her life and given the average
lifespan of a person would be 75 years, the attendant
charges must be paid for a total number of 50 years, given
that the appellant was 25 years old on the date of the
accident. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has
also stated that in view of the recent pronouncements, the
interest ought to be enhanced to 9% instead of 6% as
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company on the other hand has contended that an
examination of the evidence of the Doctor whose
deposition is exhibited as Exhibit C1, would reveal that the
disability is not permanent. Further he submits that the
Doctor has stated that the convulsions are treatable with
medicine. Thus, the disability was rightly calculated by the
learned Tribunal. In addition, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company submits that the
learned Tribunal has already awarded amounts for ‘future
9
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
medical expenses and for the caretaker’ and thus the
compensation has been rightly awarded. He has further
contended that the interest at 6% has been correctly
awarded by the learned Tribunal and the same needs no
further interference.
11. The matters that would arise for determination of
this Court are:
(i) Whether the compensation that has been awarded by
the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law?
(ii) Whether the interest awarded is in accordance with
settled legal principles?
12. At the outset, it can be seen that although the
appellant/claimant was aged 25 years and was married to
respondent No.1, who was also the driver and owner of
the offending vehicle, the claim petition was filed through
the guardian of the appellant/claimant being her mother.
12.1 The claim petition stated that since the
appellant/claimant is suffering from mental disability, the
mother has signed and presented the claim petition. It was
10
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
also stated that due to the accidental injuries, the
appellant/claimant is not able to do any work. It was also
stated that the appellant/claimant was working as the Post
office Incharge at Thekkatte Post Office and also doing
tailoring work and also a housewife and was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. But due to the accidental injuries
she was not in a position to do any work in the future. It
was also stated that the appellant/claimant is suffering
from memory issues and neurological issues. The relevant
extract of the claim petition is set out below:
“c. The petitioner was hale and healthy. She was
working as Post Office Incharge at Thekkatte
Post Office and also doing tailoring work and
also housewife and thereby she was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the accidental
injuries the petitioner could not able to attend
her work. Due to the accident the petitioner will
not be in a position to do any sort of work in
future. The petitioner has suffered permanent
disablement. The petitioner has lost her future
expectations of life and she is suffering from
memory problem, nerve problem, she is
suffering from mentally and physically ill health.
Due to the accident the petitioner and her family
members have suffered loss and hardship.
xxx xxx xxx
f. Since the petitioner is suffering from mental
disablement. Therefore, petitioner mother has
signed and presented this claim petition.
[Emphasis Supplied]
11
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
13. An examination of the disability certificate issued by
the Doctor shows that the appellant/claimant suffered
from severe head injuries and that she was on anti-
convulsants at the time of her discharge. She was
readmitted for a surgical site infection and thereafter was
discharged. Subsequently, she was re-admitted for the
third time for a cranioplasty. Even during her follow-up,
the appellant/claimant had breakthrough seizures. In
addition, the appellant/claimant has a poor working
memory and has difficulty in following instructions. Thus it
was stated by the Doctor that the appellant/claimant
would have difficulty in carrying out her daily activities and
assessed her total disability at 82.5%. The Disability
Certificate [Ex.P94] reflecting this is extracted below:
“DISABILITY CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mrs. Chethana Achar (Hospital
No.02838441) was admitted with alleged history of
RTA on 27.1.2016. At the time of admission her GCS
was E2 V1 M5. Her CT showed acute SDH in right
fronto temporo parietal region. She underwent
emergency decompressive craniectomy with
evacuation of haematoma on 27.1.2016. She
gradually recovered and was then shifted to ward.
She got discharged on 16.02.2016 and GCS at the
time of discharge was E3 V3 M6 and was on
anticonvulsants at the time of discharge. She was
12
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
under regular follow up since then. She got
readmitted on 29.02.2016 for surgical site
infection and was discharged on 02.03.2016
once infection as under control. She was
admitted for cranioplasty on 12.3.2016 and was
discharged on 22.03.2016. During her follow up,
she had breakthrough seizures for which
appropriate dose adjustment of anticonvulsant
were done. Her neuropsychological assessment
revealed that she has difficulty in identifying
numbers, colours and shapes. She has poor
working memory and has difficulty in following
instructions. Because of these things she will
have difficulty in carrying out daily activities.
This amounts to a disability of 75%. She also
has post traumatic seizure which amounts
disability of 25%.
Her total disability will be 82.25%.
Dr. Vinod Kumar,
Asst. Professor,
Dept. of Neurosurgery.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
13.1 The deposition of Dr. Vinod Kumar also similarly
reflects that at the time of the accident, the
appellant/claimant had a severe head injury and the CT
scan showed acute subdural haemorrhage. All the wounds
of the appellant/claimant were grievous and although she
was discharged on 16.02.2016, she was again admitted on
29.02.2016 and discharged on 02.03.2016. Subsequently
she was admitted on 12.03.2016 for cranioplasty surgeon
which is replacing the bone flap back to skull from the
13
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
abdomen and was discharged on 22.03.2016. She was
readmitted on 23.03.2016 and discharged on 28.03.2016.
The Doctor's statement also shows that she was admitted
for the fifth time on 25.06.2017 for other infections. The
Doctor also stated that her disability is permanent in
nature and applicable to the whole body and that she
needs regular medication which has to be given under the
supervision of others, as the appellant/claimant is not able
to take medicine on her own. The relevant extract of the
deposition is extracted thus:
“I know the petitioner in the above case and I
have treated her injuries sustained by her in a
road traffic accident. She was admitted to K.M.C
Hospital on 27/01/2016 with history of R.T.A. At that
time her COMA Score was E2V1M5 indicating severe
head injury. Immediately C.T scan was done
which showed acute subdural haemorrhage on
right side with significant mass affect and mid
line shift. She underwent emergency de-
compressive carniectomy and evacuation of SDH
under general anesthesia. Post operatively she
gradually recovered with residual right sided
weakness. All the injuries mentioned in the
wound certificate are grievous in nature. She was
discharged on 16/02/16. She was advised to continue
physiotherapy and anti convulsant medicines.
Again she was admitted on 29/02/16 with scalp
wound infection. During this admission she was
treated with antibiotics and was discharged on
02/03/16. Again she was admitted in the hospital
on 12/03/16 for carnioplasty surgery which is
replacing the bone flap back to skull from
14
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
abdomen. She was discharged on 22/03/16.
Because of severe infection of inner part of head
(meningitis) she was re-admitted to hospital on
23/03/16. This was confirmed by lumbar puncture.
She was treated with intra venous antibiotics and
discharged on 28/03/16. Again she was admitted
in hospital on 25/06/17 with history of bilateral
bacterial pneumonia and she was treated in
General Medicine Department. Thereafter she was
under regular follow up treatment in our department
and I have seen her at least 10 times in O.P.D. I
have issued disability certificate on 16/12/2017
which is already marked as Ex-P94 which bears
my signature. Thereafter also she was under
regular follow up treatment at O.P.D.
Her neuropsychological assessment revealed
that she has disability in identifying numbers,
colours and shapes. She has poor working
memory and has difficulty in following
instructions. Because of these she will have
difficulty in carrying out daily activities. This
amounts to disability of 75%. She also has post
traumatic seizure which amounts disability of
25%. Her total disability is 82.25% and I have
issued disability certificate to that effect. Her disability
is permanent in nature. Her disability is applicable to
whole body.
Petitioner needs regular medication i.e. anti
convulsants which should be given under
supervision of others as petitioner is not able to
take medicine on her own. Approximate cost of
medicine per day is Rs.50-00. Petitioner
requires constant supervision by care taker for
her daily activities.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
14. In the cross examination conducted by the counsel
for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, the Doctor
reiterated that although the condition of the
15
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
appellant/claimant has improved neurologically, she still
has cognitive deficits and persistent seizures. He further
stated that if she discontinued the medication, seizures are
likely to develop. The Doctor further deposed that it is
unlikely that the appellant/claimant will improve as two
years have already elapsed.
15. The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
1
and Another has in detail discussed how the Court must
calculate 'loss of future earning' due to permanent
disability. The principles for assessment of disability have
been summarized in the following manner:
" 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment
of compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings would depend upon the effect and
impact of such permanent disability on his
earning capacity. The Tribunal should not
mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or
loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases,
the percentage of economic loss, that is, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising
from a permanent disability will be different
from the percentage of permanent disability.
Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a
particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability
would result in a corresponding loss of earning
capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that
1
(2011) 1 SCC 343
16
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most
of the cases, equating the extent (percentage)
of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result in
award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal
is the effect of the permanent disability on the
earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms
of a percentage of the income, it has to be
quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the
future loss of earnings (by applying the standard
multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some
cases, on appreciation of evidence and
assessment, the Tribunal may find that the
percentage of loss of earning capacity as a
result of the permanent disability, is
approximately the same as the percentage of
permanent disability in which case, of course,
the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for
determination of compensation. (See for example,
the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[(2010) 10 SCC 254 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and
Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.[(2010)
10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8
Scale 567] ).
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide
whether there is any permanent disability and, if
so, the extent of such permanent disability. This
means that the Tribunal should consider and decide
with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed
with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of
such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered
by the person.
17
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no
permanent disability then there is no question of
proceeding further and determining the loss of
future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal
concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of
the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to
determine whether such permanent disability
has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
13.Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves
three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain
what activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of the permanent disability and what he
could not do as a result of the permanent
disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to
ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The
third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant
is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still
effectively carry on the activities and functions,
which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii)
whether he was prevented or restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions,
but could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions so that he continues to
earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
xxx xxx xxx
15. It may be noted that when compensation is
awarded by treating the loss of future earning
capacity as 100% (or even anything more than
50%), the need to award compensation
separately under the head of loss of amenities
or loss of expectation of life may disappear and
as a result, only a token or nominal amount may
have to be awarded under the head of loss of
amenities or loss of expectation of life, as
otherwise there may be a duplication in the
award of compensation. Be that as it may.
xxx xxx xxx
18
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
9.We may now summarise the principles discussed
above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising
from injuries), do not result in loss of earning
capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be
assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning
capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of
loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except in a
few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of
evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss
of earning capacity is the same as the
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant
or who examined him subsequently to assess
the extent of his permanent disability can give
evidence only in regard to the extent of
permanent disability. The loss of earning
capacity is something that will have to be
assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the
evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in
different percentages of loss of earning capacity
in different persons, depending upon the nature
of profession, occupation or job, age, education
and other factors."
[Emphasis Supplied]
15.1 Given the extensive evidence placed on record by the
appellant/claimant and the type of injuries sustained, it is
quite clear that the appellant/claimant would be unable to
return back to her avocation throughout her life. She
would also not be able to take care of herself
19
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
independently, requiring an attendant. However, the
learned Trial Court has not sufficiently awarded amounts
to defray these expenses.
15.2. The award for future medical expenses and care
taker at Rs.1,00,000/- is also, wholly inadequate. Since
the appellant/claimant is unable to take care of her day-to-
day activities or be able to live her life in a normal way,
she would require an attendant for the rest of her life at
least for 50 years. Given her age at the time of the
accident and she would require an attendant for the rest of
her life, this Court deems it apposite to award ‘Caretaker
expenses’ for a period of 50 years, which we find it just
and proper to award at Rs.20,00,000/-.
15.3 Thus, the award for ‘Caretaker Expenses’ is enhanced
to Rs.20,00,000/-.
16. In view of the aforegoing, the compensation towards
‘pain and suffering’ requires to be enhanced by another
Rs.3,25,000/-. The ‘loss of income in view of disability’
would thus have to be recalculated, reflecting a disability
20
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
of 100%. Given the successive hospitalization of the
appellant/claimant, compensation towards the ‘loss of
amenities in life’ would also require to be enhanced.
17. In the case on hand, the appellant/claimant was aged
25 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the multiplier
ought to be taken at ’18’ and in view of the fact that the
accident occurred in the year 2016, the notional income is
taken at Rs.9,500/- and 40% is added towards ‘future
prospects’ considering 100% disability to the whole body
and the compensation towards ‘loss of income due to
disability’ is calculated thus:
Loss of income due to Amount
disability
(9500/- + 40% x 12 x 18) x Rs.28,72,800/-
100%
18. On the aspect of the interest to be awarded by the
Tribunal, one of us, Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju , has in a
recent judgment captioned United India Insurance Co.
2
Ltd. vs. Sri. Malyadri. M And Others , after analyzing
the precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court, has
2
2026 SCC Online Kar 4090
21
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
found that an award of 9% interest is in accordance with
the settled provisions in the present day scenario,
especially in cases of death and permanent disability. It
was held that the award of 9% interest has been regularly
upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the
relevant portion of the judgment below:
“24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that the
award of interest over the last 5-10 years has infact
consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or upholding
such an award.
xxx xxx xxx
29. An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the
Supreme Court , reflects that the Supreme Court has
consistently held that the award of interest is
intended to recompensate the claimant for being
deprived of the use of money, which ought to have
been paid at the time of occurrence of the accident .
The rate of interest, therefore, must be just, fair and
reasonable, having regard to the prevailing economic
conditions and bank rates.
29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at
the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to-
case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and
reasonable.
29.2 T here cannot be any ‘straitjacket formula’ in
determining the rate of interest and that the same
must depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The guiding principle remains that the
rate must neither be punitive nor non-existent but
must strike a balance between fairness to the
claimant and reasonableness to the insurer.
29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in
case involving death and serious injury especially,
22
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
where there is a long delay in the claimants
receiving the compensation.
30. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year
2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1
and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award
came to be passed in the year 2018. The learned
Tribunal has deemed it apposite to award interest
on the compensation @ 9% per annum. The award
of interest is not punitive as is fair considering the
prevailing economic condition and bank rates. In
addition, it is now 10 years since the date of the
accident.
[Emphasis Supplied]
19. In view of the aforegoing discussion, this Court
deems it apposite to re-assess the compensation to be
awarded in the following manner:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount (in Rs.)
1 Loss of future income due to
disability
(9500x 12 x 18 x 100% + 40%)
28,72,800-00
2 Towards pain and suffering 4,00,000-00
3 Towards medical expenses 1,52,387-00
4 Towards conveyance, diet and 50,000-00
attendant charges
5 Towards loss of income during 38,000-00
laid up period (9500 x 4)
6 Towards expenses of 20,00,000-00
Caretaker/Attendant charges
TOTAL 55,13,187-00
Less: Awarded by Tribunal 11,12,187-00
Enhanced compensation Rs.44,01,000-00
23
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
20. In the present case, the appellant/claimant has
suffered severe and grievous head injuries and is unable
to carry out even her day-to-day activities without
medication. Doctors have deposed that her neurological
condition is unlikely to improve. It has also been 10 years
since the date of the accident. Given the aforegoing
discussions, this Court deems it apposite to enhance the
interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 8% per annum
with caveat. However, no interest would be awarded on
the ‘Expenses of caretaker’.
21. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.55,13,187/- along with interest at
8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
22. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part ;
24
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
(ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated
17.06.2020 in MVC No.794/2016 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT,
Kundapura, is modified, to the extent that the
appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.44,01,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum in addition
to Rs.11,12,187/- already awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned
Award of the learned Tribunal remains
undisturbed.
(iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company
shall deposit the enhanced compensation with
interest applicable thereon, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment;
(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same
shall be released in favour of the
25
NC: 2026:KHC:32827-DB
MFA No. 1405 of 2021
HC-KAR
appellant/claimant, on filing of an appropriate
application by the appellant/claimant for
withdrawal of the enhanced amount.
(vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly.
(vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of
this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.
(viii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
26