THE MANAGER vs ASHOK
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.204050 OF 2025 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.204204 OF 2025 (MV-I)
IN MFA No.204050/2025:
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O BHIMRAO WAGGE,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VILLAGE BAGDAL,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585 226.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED AZHAR AHMED,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.2-81, MALAPOOR VILLAGE,
CHEVALLA RANGAREDDY,
S.O. K.V RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-501 503,
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGD.
NO.TS-07/UA.4724).
2. THE MANAGER,
CHOLA MANDALAM M/S GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ST
1 FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE,
Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA
S D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
NEAR DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBLI-580 029.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 05.02.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.04.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
CJM AT BIDAR, IN MVC NO.466/2023.
IN MFA NO.204204/2025:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INSU. CO. LTD.,
ST
1 FLOOR, V.A. KALABURAGI SQUARE,
NEAR DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBALI-580 029,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASHOK S/O BHIMRAO WAGGE,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VILLAGE BAGDAL,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR.
2. MOHAMMED AZHAR AHMED,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 2-81, MALAPOOR VILLAGE,
CHEVALLA RANGAREDDY,
S.O.K.V. RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-501 503,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REGN.
NO.TS-07/UA-4724).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.466/2023 DATED
02.04.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM BIDAR; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 02.04.2025 IN MVC NO.466/2023 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM BIDAR, BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M
ORAL JUDGMENT
The MFA No.204050/2025 is filed by Ashok son of
Bhimrao Wagge, seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The MFA No.204204/2025 is filed by
Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited,
seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
3. The MFA No.204050/2025 is preferred by the
appellant-Ashok, calling in question the legality,
correctness and propriety of the judgment and award
nd
dated 2 April, 2025, passed by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bidar (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity).
4. The MFA No.204204/2025 is preferred by
Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited,
calling in question the very same judgment and award,
which is the subject matter of MFA No.204050/2025
preferred by Ashok.
5. Since both these appeals arise out of the same
judgment and award and have been preferred by the
respective parties questioning the legality and correctness
thereof, both the appeals are taken up together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
6. The aforesaid Ashok was the petitioner before
the Tribunal, whereas Cholamandalam General Insurance
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
Company Limited was respondent No.2 and one
Mohammed Azhar Ahmed was respondent No.1 in MVC
No.466 of 2023 before the Tribunal.
7. For the sake of convenience and to avoid
confusion, the parties are referred to as per their
respective ranks assigned to them before the learned
Tribunal.
8. The facts giving rise to the present appeals, in
brief, are as follows:
(i) The petitioner-Ashok filed MVC No.466 of 2023
seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in
th
a road traffic accident that occurred on 4 March, 2023.
th
(ii) According to the petitioner, on 4 March, 2023,
he was proceeding from his village towards Sadashivapet
along with his wife to attend coolie work. When they were
proceeding on NH-65 near PSML X Road at about 4:30
p.m., the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TS-
07/UA-4724 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
vehicle” for the sake of brevity), drove the same at high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner
that, due to the said accident, he sustained grievous
injuries to his left leg and other parts of the body.
(iii) It is also stated that, immediately after the
accident, the petitioner was shifted to the Government
Hospital, Sangareddy, and thereafter taken to Osmania
General Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that
he underwent surgery at Osmania General Hospital and
th th
was an inpatient from 4 March, 2023 to 10 April, 2023.
(iv) The petitioner further contends that, prior to
the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged about 35
years, and was working as a coolie, earning Rs.25,000/-
per month.
(v) It is the further contention of the petitioner
that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident,
he has suffered permanent physical impairment and is
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
unable to carry on his work in the same manner as he was
doing prior to the accident.
(vi) Amongst other grounds, the petitioner filed MVC
No.466 of 2023 seeking suitable compensation for the
injuries and consequential disability suffered by him.
9. After presentation of the petition, the same
came to be registered and notices were issued to the
respondents by the Tribunal. Despite service of summons
issued by the Tribunal, the first respondent, namely,
Mohammed Azhar Ahmed, did not enter appearance.
Hence, he was placed ex parte. Nevertheless, the second
respondent, Cholamandalam General Insurance Company
Limited, entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed
its written statement, thereby stoutly resisting the claim
petition.
10. After completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed five issues for its consideration. Thereafter, the
Tribunal afforded reasonable opportunities to the parties to
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
adduce their evidence. In order to substantiate his
contentions, the petitioner, namely Ashok, examined
himself as PW1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1
to P13. On the other hand, the second respondent
examined its official, namely Sajid Ahmed, as RW1. The
Insurance Company got marked the copy of the insurance
policy and the authorization letter as Exs.R1 and R2,
respectively.
11. After closure of the evidence, the Tribunal
afforded reasonable opportunities to the parties to
advance their arguments. Upon hearing the arguments,
nd
the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment dated 2
April, 2025, whereby it awarded compensation of
Rs.11,17,310/- together with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The
Tribunal further directed the second respondent therein,
namely Cholamandalam General Insurance Company
Limited, to satisfy the award within 30 days from the date
of the award.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the
petitioner, Ashok, filed MFA No.204050/2025, principally
questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on the ground of inadequacy. Per contra, the
Insurance Company, namely, Cholamandalam General
Insurance Company Limited filed MFA No.204204/2025,
seeking reduction of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Basavaraj R. Math, submitted that the petitioner had
sustained 60% disability of the whole body, whereas the
Tribunal had assessed his whole-body disability at only
40%. Hence, he contended that the same requires
reconsideration.
14. Besides, the learned counsel for the said
petitioner contended that though, from the medical
standpoint, the petitioner had sustained 60% disability, his
functional disability was virtually 100%. It was therefore
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
contended that the Tribunal had erroneously failed to
consider this aspect of the matter and, consequently, the
impugned judgment and award require reconsideration.
15. The learned counsel for the said petitioner-
Ashok, further submitted that the Tribunal had erroneously
assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/- per
annum, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had
produced material to establish that he was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. Consequently, it was contended
that the impugned judgment and award warrant
interference by this Court.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the doctor, namely PW2, had specifically
supported the case of the petitioner and that the disability
certificate at Ex.P1 also supported his case. The learned
counsel for the said petitioner-Ashok, also drew the
attention of this Court to the photographs, four in number,
which have been collectively marked as Ex.P11.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
17. Further, the learned counsel contended that the
said photographs speak for themselves and are sufficient
to demonstrate the severity and gravity of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner. Amongst other formal
grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for
suitable enhancement of the compensation.
18. Per contra, the learned advocate, Sri S. S.
Aspalli, appearing for the Cholamandalam Insurance
Company, which is the appellant in MFA No.204204/2025,
would contend that Ex.P4 would demonstrate that, at the
relevant point of time, the injured claimant, namely Ashok,
was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, according to
him, the claimant himself was exclusively responsible for
the occurrence of the accident. However, the said aspect
was not noticed by the learned Tribunal. According to the
learned advocate for the Insurance Company, the Tribunal
ought to have considered this aspect and ought to have
apportioned the negligence equally between the driver of
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
the lorry, which is shown as the offending vehicle, and the
petitioner, Ashok.
19. The learned advocate for the Insurance
Company would further contend that, in the First
Information Report, which is popularly referred to as the
complaint in common parlance, it is recited that, at the
relevant point of time, the petitioner, Ashok, was crossing
the road and, hence, the accident had occurred. According
to the learned advocate for the Insurance Company, while
deciding the question of negligence, the Tribunal ought to
have considered this aspect of the matter. However, the
Tribunal has failed to consider the same. Hence,
interference by this Court is warranted.
20. The learned advocate for the Insurance
Company would further contend that, at paragraph No.20
of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal has
recorded that the doctor had assessed 60% disability of
the left lower limb of the petitioner and that only one-third
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
of the said limb disability should be taken into
consideration as the whole-body disability. The learned
advocate for the Insurance Company would contend that,
having held so, the Tribunal ought to have taken the
whole-body disability of the petitioner, Ashok, at 20%,
since 20% represents one-third of 60%, being the
disability of the left lower limb. According to the learned
counsel, despite recording the said finding, the Tribunal
has assessed the whole-body disability of the petitioner at
40%, which is not sustainable and calls for interference by
this Court.
21. The learned advocate for the Insurance
Company would further contend that the learned Tribunal
has failed to consider the evidence of RW1, the witness
examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, with
regard to the driving licence, permit and fitness certificate
of the vehicle shown as the offending vehicle. Amongst
other formal grounds, the learned advocate for the
Insurance Company sought reduction of the compensation
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
and also sought fastening of the liability upon the owner of
the vehicle.
22. Per contra, the learned advocate for the
petitioner would contend that the petitioner, Ashok, has
filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, seeking permission to produce the driving
licence, permit and such other documents, and the said
documents are very much available on record. Therefore,
according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the
Insurance Company cannot contend that it is not liable to
satisfy the award.
23. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company.
24. It is necessary to note that the learned
advocate for the insurance company would contend that,
at the relevant point of time, the injured person, namely,
Ashok, was under the influence of alcohol and was drowsy
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
and, therefore, he was exclusively responsible for the
occurrence of the accident. This contention, therefore,
requires consideration by this appellate Court.
25. It is a fact that soon after the accident, the
injured person, Ashok, was produced before the Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital,
Sangareddy District, for medical examination. The said
medical certificate dated 04.03.2023 has been marked as
Ex.P4. In Ex.P4, it is specifically mentioned that the
patient was “under alcoholic influence, drowsy”. Thus, at
the first blush, the said document creates an impression
that the injured Ashok was also at fault. Nevertheless, a
closer scrutiny of the said document would reveal a
different picture. To put it differently, it is not in dispute
that, when he was subjected to medical examination, the
injured Ashok was under the influence of alcohol.
However, the doctor, who examined him has not
mentioned the quantity of alcohol present in his blood. The
doctor has also not stated whether the quantity of alcohol
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
was such as to affect his ability to walk, maintain his
balance, or exercise proper control over his bodily
movements. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that merely because the injured Ashok
was under the influence of alcohol when he was medically
examined, that by itself is not sufficient to draw an
inference that he was exclusively responsible for the
occurrence of the accident.
26. It is also a fact that, in Ex.P4, the doctor has
mentioned the word “drowsy”. While appreciating the
significance of the said expression, the nature and severity
of the injuries sustained by the injured Ashok also require
consideration. It is necessary to note that the injured
Ashok has produced four photographs before the Tribunal,
which have been collectively marked as Ex.P11. The first
two photographs make it clear that the injured Ashok had
sustained serious injuries to his left heel and foot. The said
photographs further show extensive damage to the area
about two inches above the ankle region and to the entire
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
sole of the foot. They also indicate that the skin, flesh and
underlying fatty tissues in the area above the ankle, as
well as over the heel and sole of the foot, had been
extensively scraped.
27. In the considered opinion of this Court, when a
person sustains such severe injuries, he may, because of
the pain and trauma, utter incoherent words or appear dull
or drowsy. Therefore, merely because the word “drowsy”
is mentioned in the medical certificate at Ex.P4, that, by
itself, is not sufficient to conclude that the injured Ashok
was exclusively responsible for the occurrence of the
accident.
28. The learned advocate for the insurance
company, Sri S.S. Aspalli, would also contend that the
First Information Report specifically records that, at the
relevant point of time, the injured Ashok was crossing the
road and, therefore, he himself was exclusively
responsible for the occurrence of the accident. Per contra,
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
the learned advocate appearing for the injured-Ashok
would contend that the complaint, which formed the basis
for registration of the First Information Report, was lodged
by the wife of the injured Ashok, who was not an
eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, according to him, no
significance can be attached to the said recital in the First
Information Report.
29. In view of these rival contentions, this Court
has carefully perused Ex.P2, which is the complaint in
Telugu language, and Ex.P2(A), which is the Kannada
translated copy of the said complaint. It is factually correct
that the said complaint records that the accident occurred
at about 4:30 p.m. on 04.03.2023, when the injured
Ashok was crossing the road.
30. Further, Ex.P3 is the spot mahazar, which is
also in Telugu language, and Ex.P3(A) is its translated
copy. Even in the said mahazar, it is recited that the
accident occurred when the injured Ashok was crossing
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
the road. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the said
recitals found in Exs.P2 and P3. However, the question
that arises for consideration is whether the mere fact that
the injured Ashok was crossing the road, even if accepted
at its face value, was responsible for the occurrence of the
accident.
31. In the considered opinion of this Court, in order
to answer the said question, it is necessary to examine the
sketch forming part and parcel of the mahazar at Ex.P3.
The rough sketch prepared by the police at the time of
drawing up the mahazar presents a different picture
altogether.
32. To put it differently, the road on which the
accident occurred is a National Highway leading from
Zahirabad to Hyderabad. The said road runs in an east-
west direction and has a central median. Therefore, the
sketch makes it clear that, for vehicles travelling from east
to west, the southern half of the road constitutes the lane
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
meant for such traffic, whereas the northern half
constitutes the lane meant for vehicles travelling from
west to east i.e., from Zahirabad towards Hyderabad.
33. A perusal of the entire material on record
makes it clear that, at the relevant point of time, the lorry,
which is shown as the offending vehicle, was proceeding in
the east-west direction i.e., from the Hyderabad side
towards Zahirabad. Therefore, the southern half of the
road, namely the portion situated on the southern side of
the central median, was the lane meant for the offending
vehicle.
34. Having noticed the above position, this Court
has once again carefully examined the said sketch. It is
seen that the place of accident is shown very close to the
southern edge of the road. This indicates that, at the
relevant point of time, irrespective of whether the injured
Ashok was walking along the road or was attempting to
cross the road, the fact remains that he was at the
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
southern edge of the road. This circumstance, in the
considered opinion of this Court, does not indicate any
contribution on his part to the occurrence of the accident.
In the considered opinion of this Court, if the place of
accident had been immediately adjacent to the central
median or in the middle portion of the east-west road, the
matter might have stood on a different footing.
35. Besides, the record shows that the petitioner
Ashok has examined himself as P.W.1. He has filed his
affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC by way of
examination-in-chief, wherein he has reiterated the
averments made in the claim petition. It is necessary to
note that the learned advocate for the insurance company
has cross-examined P.W.1. However, during the course of
his cross-examination, it was not even suggested to P.W.1
that, at the relevant point of time, the injured Ashok had
abruptly attempted to cross the road without observing
the vehicular traffic and, in the process, rushed onto the
road, thereby causing the accident. Likewise, it was not
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
suggested to P.W.1 that, at the relevant point of time, he
was under the influence of alcohol and, owing to the
influence of alcohol, he had lost control over his limbs and
was walking in a zigzag manner, thereby losing control
over his gait and becoming responsible for the occurrence
of the accident. In the considered opinion of this Court, in
the absence of any such suggestion during the cross-
examination of P.W.1, it is difficult to accept the
contention now advanced by the insurance company.
36. The record also shows that the insurance
company has examined one of its officials, namely, Sajid
Ahmed Doddamani, as R.W.1. He has also filed his
affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. However, in
the said affidavit, R.W.1 has not made even a whisper of
an allegation against the petitioner-injured Ashok to the
effect that Ashok himself was responsible for the
occurrence of the accident. Per contra, the entire evidence
of R.W.1 revolves around the contention that the owner of
the lorry, which is shown as the offending vehicle, had
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
permitted an unknown person, who did not possess a
driving licence, to drive the said vehicle and, therefore,
there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, warranting exoneration of the insurance
company from liability. Except this, R.W.1 has not uttered
a word imputing negligence or any irresponsible act to the
injured Ashok.
37. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence
or other cogent material on record, the mere contention
advanced at the appellate stage that the injured Ashok
was under the influence of alcohol and was drowsy and,
therefore, had contributed to the occurrence of the
accident, cannot be accepted, as the same does not
receive any support from the other material available on
record.
38. The Court now proceeds to examine whether
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in conformity
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
with the applicable parameters and principles governing
the assessment of compensation.
39. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal
makes it clear that the learned Tribunal has not discussed
the medical evidence in any meaningful manner, except
observing that the doctor had assessed the disability of
the injured Ashok at 60% and that it would be appropriate
to take one-third of the said disability as the whole-body
disability of the petitioner. Astonishingly, although the
Tribunal has observed that only one-third of the limb
disability assessed by the doctor should be taken as the
whole-body disability of the injured Ashok, in the very
next line, the Tribunal has assessed the whole-body
disability of the petitioner at 40%. This inconsistency in
the said two or three lines of the impugned judgment has
been specifically highlighted by the learned advocate for
the insurance company.
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
40. According to the learned counsel for the
insurance company, once the Tribunal had held that only
one-third of the limb disability assessed by the doctor
should be taken as the whole-body disability, the Tribunal
ought to have assessed the whole-body disability at 20%,
and not at 40%.
41. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for
the injured Ashok would contend that a perusal of the
wound certificate, disability certificate and the evidence of
the doctor-P.W.2, would reveal that the petitioner had
sustained very severe injuries, which had substantially
affected his earning capacity and functional capacity.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal
ought to have assessed the functional disability of the
petitioner at 100%.
42. In the considered opinion of this Court, unless
and until the entire evidence of the doctor, P.W.2, and the
disability certificate are examined, the controversy in this
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
regard cannot be resolved. Therefore, this Court now
proceeds to consider the guidelines and parameters
prescribed by the Central Government.
43. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this
Court deems it appropriate to observe that, while
adjudicating and awarding compensation in Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims, the Courts and Tribunals have
consistently placed reliance upon the guidelines
formulated in the Gazette Notification issued by the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government
of India, bearing Registration No. DL-33004/99,
[Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, dated 13.06.2001],
published and printed by the National Institute for
Orthopaedically Handicapped, B.T. Road, Ban Hooghly,
Kolkata .
44. A plain reading of the aforesaid guidelines
makes it abundantly clear that, while assessing the
disability of an affected limb, the doctor is required to take
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
the corresponding healthy limb of the same person or
patient as the touchstone. Thereafter, the doctor has to
determine the extent of disability or permanent physical
impairment. The guidelines further make it clear that the
primary duty of the doctor is to ascertain the actual range
of movement of each joint of the healthy limb of the
injured person, OR the standard range of movement
applicable to a healthy person, and thereafter determine
the loss of movement in the affected limb or joint. The
normal range of movement of a joint is denoted by the
abbreviation ‘A’, whereas the loss of movement is denoted
by ‘B’. The doctor is required, in the first instance, to take
the normal range of movement of the healthy limb or joint
as the touchstone and thereafter ascertain the existing
range of movement of the affected limb by subjecting the
injured person to various movements, so as to determine
the actual loss of movement of the concerned joint or
limb.
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
45. In addition thereto, the aforesaid guidelines
provide that the difference between the normal or
maximum range of movement and the existing range of
movement is termed as the “loss of movement”. The
doctor is thereafter required to divide the loss of range of
movement, represented by ‘B’, by the normal range of
movement, represented by ‘A’. The resulting ratio, when
multiplied by 100 , represents the extent of disability or
percentage of permanent impairment of the particular
joint. It is also relevant to note that the normal human
upper limb consists of three joints, namely, the shoulder,
elbow and wrist joints. Likewise, the lower limb consists of
three joints, namely, the hip, knee and ankle-foot joints.
46. The aforesaid guidelines further provide that,
for assessing the percentage of disability, the loss of
movement is required to be divided by the normal range
of movement, multiplied by 100, and the resultant figure
is thereafter to be divided by 3 . This final step is
necessary because each limb, whether upper or lower,
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
consists of three different joints. The resultant figure
represents the actual percentage of loss of range of
movement of that limb.
47. It is further relevant to note that, in the
introductory portion of the aforesaid guidelines, it has
been specifically stated that, in cases involving locomotor
or orthopaedic conditions, the human body is divided into
three parts, namely, the upper limb, lower limb and trunk.
The underlying principle is that the function of one part
cannot be performed by another part. Therefore, each part
is treated as 100% in itself, and the loss of function of a
particular joint is treated as 100% loss of that joint.
48. In the light of the aforesaid parameters and
guidelines prescribed by the Central Government, this
Court now proceeds to examine the evidence of the
doctor, P.W.2.
49. The record shows that Dr. Vijaykumar Bilgundi
has been examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 has filed his affidavit
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
in lieu of his examination-in-chief, wherein he has
supported the case of the petitioner.
50. In the said affidavit, P.W.2 has testified that, on
13.08.2024, the petitioner visited him for assessment of
disability and that he verified the wound certificate and
other allied documents produced by the injured Ashok. It
is necessary to note that P.W.2 is not the doctor who
treated the petitioner. Per contra, he has only assessed
the disability of the petitioner Ashok.
51. P.W.2 has specifically stated that he subjected
the petitioner Ashok to clinical examination and that the
said examination revealed the following problems in the
left leg and foot of the petitioner:
“SSG over ankle, sole, dorsum of foot; mobility
component includes range of movement and
muscle strength — range of movement at ankle;
fixed ankle with no movements; 20% loss.”
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
52. The aforesaid description consists of medical
terminology. In order to appreciate the significance of the
same, it is necessary to understand the normal range of
movement of the ankle-foot joint in a healthy person.
53. The aforesaid parameters and guidelines
indicate that the normal dorsiflexion movement of the
ankle-foot joint in a healthy person ranges from 0 to 20
degrees. “ Dorsiflexion” means movement of the foot
upwards, which, in vernacular terms, may be described as
movement towards the upper side.
54. Further, the normal plantar flexion of the foot-
ankle joint in a healthy person ranges from 0 to 40
degrees. “ Plantar flexion” means movement of the foot
downwards, which may be described as movement
towards the lower side.
55. Further, the normal inversion and eversion
movements of the ankle-foot joint of a healthy person are
also required to be noticed. Inversion, namely, movement
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
of the foot towards the body, normally ranges from about
30 to 35 degrees, whereas eversion, namely, movement of
the foot away from the body, normally ranges from about
15 to 20 degrees.
56. Having understood the various movements of
the ankle-foot joint, the normal range of movement
available to a healthy person and the corresponding
medical terminology, this Court has once again carefully
examined the evidence of P.W.2. The doctor has
specifically stated that the ankle joint of the petitioner is
fixed and has no movement at all.
57. Therefore, this circumstance indicates that,
although the ankle-foot joint remains anatomically
attached to the leg of the petitioner, it has virtually lost its
functional movement. Further, according to the doctor,
owing to the complete absence of movement of the ankle-
foot joint, the petitioner has sustained 20% permanent
physical impairment.
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
58. In the next paragraph of his affidavit, P.W.2 has
stated that the muscle strength of the left leg of the
petitioner Ashok is Grade-0. Therefore, the loss of muscle
strength is 100%, and the consequent disability in respect
of the entire left lower limb is assessed at 30%.
59. The aforesaid guidelines and parameters
indicate that the normal muscle strength of a healthy
human being is Grade-5. The said guidelines further
indicate that, if the muscle strength is reduced to Grade-4
as against the normal Grade-5, it would amount to 20%
loss of muscle strength. Likewise, if the muscle strength is
reduced to Grade-3 as against the normal Grade-5, it
would amount to 40% loss of muscle strength. Thus, for
every reduction of one grade, the corresponding loss of
muscle strength is 20%. Finally, the said parameters
indicate that, when the muscle strength is reduced to
Grade-0 as against the normal Grade-5, the loss of muscle
strength is 100%.
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
60. Further, the said parameters reveal that the
upper and lower limbs of a human being consist of three
principal joints. In the case of the lower limb, these are
the hip joint, knee joint and ankle-foot joint. Likewise, the
upper limb consists of the shoulder joint, elbow joint and
wrist joint. The guidelines further indicate that each of
these three joints constitutes 30% of the total functional
component of the respective limb.
61. Therefore, when an injured person suffers
complete loss of muscle strength, namely, when the
muscle strength is reduced to Grade-0 as against the
normal Grade-5, the loss of muscle strength is 100%.
Since the lower limb consists of three principal joints and
each joint constitutes 30% of the total functional
component of the limb, the said 100% loss of muscle
strength, when confined to one joint, has to be assessed
at 30% in respect of the entire lower limb. This is precisely
the manner in which P.W.2 has assessed the disability in
the third paragraph of his affidavit.
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
62. Further, in paragraph No.4 of his affidavit, the
doctor has narrated the various problems and difficulties
experienced by the petitioner while performing his day-to-
day activities involving the use of his lower limb.
63. Before examining the same, it is necessary to
understand the various activities which a human being
ordinarily performs with the assistance of the lower limbs,
particularly the ability to walk, stand and perform other
activities requiring the functional use of the lower limbs.
64. It is significant to note that the aforesaid
guidelines make it clear that a person, whether male or
female, is required to perform nine different activities,
referred to as coordinated activities, by using the lower
limb . The said nine coordinated activities are as follows:
i. Ability to walk on a plain surface;
ii. Ability to walk on a slope;
iii. Ability to climb steps;
iv. Ability to stand on both legs;
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
v. Ability to stand on the affected leg;
vi. Ability to squat;
vii. Ability to sit cross-legged;
viii. Ability to sit on the knees; and
ix. Ability to turn.
65. The reason why these activities are described
as “coordinated activities” requires to be understood. As
stated above, both the upper and lower limbs of a human
being consist of three joints. The upper limb comprises the
shoulder, elbow and wrist joints, whereas, the lower limb
comprises the hip, knee and ankle-foot joints. It is only
when there is proper coordination or cooperation among
these three joints that person is able to perform the
aforesaid activities. Hence, such activities are
appropriately referred to as “coordinated activities” OR
activities of daily living.
66. As indicated in the aforesaid guidelines and
parameters, where an injured person is completely unable
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
to perform coordinated activities, 10% disability would be
attributable to such inability.
67. However, in the present case, in paragraph
No.4 of his affidavit, the doctor has stated that the
petitioner has difficulty in performing various activities
involving the use of his lower limb. The doctor has
assigned 5 points for difficulty in walking on a plain
surface, 6 points for walking on a slope, 6 points for
difficulty in climbing steps, 3 points for standing on both
legs, 10 points for standing on the affected leg, 6 points
for difficulty in squatting on the floor, 4 points for sitting
cross-legged, 8 points for taking turns and 6 points for
kneeling.
68. Thus, the evidence of the doctor makes it clear
that, owing to the injuries sustained to his left leg, the
petitioner is unable to perform the aforesaid nine
coordinated activities as freely and comfortably as he was
able to do prior to the accident. Further, the evidence of
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
the doctor indicates that, though the petitioner Ashok is
able to perform some of these activities, he can do so only
with considerable difficulty. This is reflected in the points
assigned by the doctor, namely, 6 points, 4 points, 8
points and so on, in respect of the respective activities.
69. As regards standing on the affected leg, the
doctor has assigned the full 10 points. This indicates that
the petitioner is unable to stand on the affected leg,
namely, his left leg. Therefore, the examination-in-chief of
the doctor substantially supports the case of the
petitioner.
70. It is also necessary to take note of Ex.P13,
namely, the X-ray films. The said X-ray films issued by
G.B. Hospital, four in number, have been collectively
marked as Ex.P13. These X-ray films lend support to the
evidence given by the doctor.
71. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the
petitioner had not produced the said X-ray films and the
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
photographs at Ex.P11, there might have been some
scope to doubt or question the evidence of the doctor.
However, the photographs at Ex.P11 as well as the X-ray
films at Ex.P13 lend substantial support to the evidence
given by the doctor.
72. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that
no conclusion can be drawn without examining and
appreciating the cross-examination of the doctor, P.W.2.
Therefore, this Court now proceeds to consider the cross-
examination of P.W.2.
73. During the cross-examination of P.W.2, the
insurance company suggested that P.W.2 had not treated
the petitioner Ashok at any point of time. P.W.2 admitted
the said suggestion. The question, therefore, is whether
the mere fact that P.W.2 is not the treating doctor is
sufficient, by itself, to disbelieve or discard his evidence.
74. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines makes it
clear that merely because a person sustains a fracture
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
injury, that by itself does not necessarily result in
permanent disability. On the contrary, the said parameters
indicate that, if the fracture results in reduction of the
range of movement, loss of muscle strength and difficulty
in performing various coordinated activities or activities of
daily living, the same may result in permanent physical
impairment. Therefore, merely because P.W.2 is not the
doctor who treated the petitioner, that, by itself, is not
sufficient to discard his evidence, provided his evidence is
otherwise found to be acceptable.
75. As observed above, the four photographs
collectively marked as Ex.P11 and the four X-ray films
collectively marked as Ex.P13 demonstrate that the
petitioner had sustained serious injuries to his left ankle
and the sole of his left foot. The first two photographs in
Ex.P11 clearly show that the area above the ankle, the
ankle region and the sole of the left foot of the petitioner
had been scraped. Such visible and extensive injuries
cannot be brushed aside or ignored. In that view of the
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
matter, the evidence of the doctor cannot be disbelieved
merely on the ground that he was not the treating doctor.
76. Further, during the cross-examination of P.W.2,
the insurance company suggested that the petitioner could
use his upper limbs for carrying out his professional work,
and P.W.2 admitted the said suggestion. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the very suggestion put by the
insurance company indicates, at least indirectly, that the
petitioner Ashok has suffered impairment in his left lower
limb and has difficulty in using the same.
77. It is also necessary to note that, during the
cross-examination of P.W.2, it was suggested by the
insurance company that the assessment of disability made
by him was not in conformity with the guidelines issued by
the Central Government. P.W.2 emphatically denied the
said suggestion. However, as discussed in the preceding
paragraphs of this judgment, this Court has already
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
concluded that the assessment of disability made by P.W.2
is in conformity with the applicable guidelines.
78. In any event, in the considered opinion of this
Court, if the insurance company was genuinely disputing
the assessment of disability made by P.W.2, it could have
requested the Tribunal to refer the petitioner Ashok to a
Medical Board for reassessment of his disability. No such
effort was made before the Tribunal. Therefore, at this
stage, it is difficult for the insurance company to advance
such a contention without having taken any such steps
before the Tribunal.
79. It is necessary to note that, while conducting
the cross-examination of P.W.2, nothing was put to him to
the effect that the petitioner had not sustained any injury
or permanent physical impairment to his left ankle-foot
joint. Per contra, P.W.1, the petitioner, as well as P.W.2,
the doctor have specifically testified before the Tribunal
that the petitioner Ashok had sustained permanent
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
physical impairment to his left ankle joint. Therefore, the
said evidence remains uncontroverted. Consequently, this
Court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by
P.W.2.
80. For the foregoing reasons, this Court accepts
the evidence of the doctor and holds that the petitioner
has sustained 60% disability of the lower limb. It is again
necessary to note that, in his examination-in-chief, the
doctor has specifically stated that the percentage of
permanent disability of the lower limb is 60%. The said
statement is found in the last but one paragraph of the
affidavit of P.W.2. The said assessment made by the
doctor is accepted by this Court.
81. Now, it is necessary to consider one important
aspect. It is consistently being followed by the Tribunals
and, even before this Court, the learned advocates
appearing for the parties would contend that one-third of
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
the limb disability should ordinarily be taken as the whole-
body disability.
82. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this
judgment, having regard to the parameters prescribed by
the Government and the anatomical structure of the
human body, this Court has observed that the disability
pertaining to one joint of a limb constitutes only a
proportion of the disability of the entire limb. To put it
differently, the human upper limb has three principal
joints, namely, the shoulder joint, elbow joint and wrist
joint. The parameters themselves indicate that each joint
constitutes 30% of the functional component of the limb.
Therefore, while assessing the disability of the entire limb,
the disability attributable to one joint has to be considered
in the context of the remaining components of the limb.
83. It is also necessary to note that, in the
introductory portion of the said guidelines, it is stated that,
for the purpose of assessing locomotor disabilities or
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
orthopaedic impairments, the human body is divided into
three components, namely, the upper limb, lower limb and
trunk. The methodology adopted for determining the
percentage of disability in relation to a particular joint
cannot be mechanically applied while determining whole-
body disability. From the standpoint of medical science,
therefore, one-third of the disability of a limb may be
taken as whole-body disability.
84. However, the assessment of compensation
under the Motor Vehicles Act is not confined to medical
disability alone. The Tribunal and the Court are required to
determine the functional disability suffered by the injured
person. Therefore, with mathematical precision, it cannot
be held in every case that only one-third of the limb
disability must invariably be treated as the whole-body
disability. Per contra, the Court is required to consider the
actual difficulties experienced by the injured person in
performing his day-to-day activities, having regard to his
occupation or avocation, age and the nature of the injuries
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
sustained. It is only after considering these factors that
the functional disability can be determined.
85. It is necessary to note that in the claim petition
itself, the petitioner has contended that prior to the
accident, he and his wife were doing coolie work at
different places. It is a matter of common knowledge that
in order to perform coolie work, including agricultural
coolie work, a person requires healthy and functional limbs
and sufficient physical strength. In the present case, the
photographs at Ex.P11 reveal that the left ankle and sole
of the left foot of the petitioner have sustained serious and
extensive damage. Photographs Nos.3 and 4 of Ex.P11
further show that the left leg of the petitioner has lost its
normal alignment. In other words, a plain perusal of these
photographs shows that, while the right leg of the
petitioner is in proper alignment, the left foot and ankle
joint are deviated towards the left side.
- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
86. These circumstances indicate that the petitioner
would find it difficult to continue his avocation as a coolie
worker. Therefore, this aspect requires serious
consideration and the injuries sustained by the petitioner
cannot be viewed in a casual or mechanical manner.
Having held so, this Court is required to bear in mind the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar
1
vs. Ajay Kumar and Another . In paragraph No.10 of
the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
emphasised that while determining compensation for
permanent disability, the Tribunal and the Courts are
required to consider the nature of work, which the injured
person was pursuing prior to the accident, whether he can
continue to pursue the same avocation after the accident
and whether, in the alternative, he can pursue any other
avocation or profession for earning his livelihood.
1
(2011) 1 SCC 343
- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
87. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it can reasonably be
concluded that having regard to the present condition of
the left foot and ankle joint of the petitioner – Ashok, he
would not be in a position to continue his avocation as a
coolie worker. At the same time, the petitioner may be
able to take up some other avocation, which can
substantially be performed while sitting. However, even if
the petitioner were to take up a milk-vending or
vegetable-vending business as a means of livelihood, such
an avocation would also require some degree of physical
movement, including travelling to purchase milk or
vegetables and transporting the same to the place where
they are to be sold. Thus, viewed from any angle, the
permanent physical impairment suffered by the petitioner
would have a substantial bearing on his future life as well
as his earning capacity.
88. The learned counsel appearing for the injured -
Ashok would contend that having regard to seriousness
- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
and severity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he
has become completely dependent upon the income of his
wife and therefore, his functional disability ought to be
assessed at 100%. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that
the petitioner is capable of taking up some other
avocation, which can be performed while sitting.
89. In the considered opinion of this Court,
although the petitioner has sustained serious and
permanent physical impairment, he is not rendered
incapable of pursuing every form of avocation. He can,
depending upon his circumstances, take up some other
profession or occupation as a means of livelihood.
However, as noticed above, even such alternative
avocations are likely to involve some degree of physical
activity, including travelling, movement and shifting of
articles. Therefore, having regard to the nature and
extent of injuries, the permanent physical impairment
suffered by the petitioner, his pre-accident avocation, the
- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
difficulties he is likely to face in continuing the same and
the possibility of pursuing an alternative avocation, this
Court is of the considered opinion that if the whole-body
functional disability of the petitioner - Ashok is assessed at
45%, the same would meet the ends of justice.
90. The impugned judgment shows that the
Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured - Ashok at
Rs.12,000/- per month. The accident occurred on
04.03.2023. It is a fact that the petitioner - Ashok has
claimed that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
However, except for his oral assertion, he has not
produced any supporting documentary evidence to
establish the said income. This Court is conscious of the
fact that it would be difficult to expect a coolie worker to
maintain documentary proof regarding his income.
91. Nevertheless, it is necessary to note that the
Karnataka Legal Services Authority has published a
Notional Income Chart to facilitate the Courts and
- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
Tribunals in determining income in appropriate cases. As
per the said Notional Income Chart, the notional income
prescribed for the year 2023 is Rs.15,500/- per month.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that if the income of
the injured - Ashok is assessed at Rs.15,500/- per month,
the same would meet the ends of justice.
92. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
further contend that the Tribunal has not added any
amount to the assessed income of the injured - Ashok
towards future prospects. The said submission of the
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is factually
2
correct. In Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and
also in Sidram v. United India Insurance Company
3
Limited , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the
principle that the benefit of addition to the established
income towards future prospects is not confined to cases
of death, but, is also applicable to injured claimants who
2
(2020) 14 SCC 516
3
2023 (3) SCC 439
- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
have suffered permanent physical impairment in a motor
vehicle accident. Applying the said principle to the facts of
the present case, the inevitable conclusion is that the
injured petitioner - Ashok is entitled to an appropriate
addition to his established income towards future
prospects.
93. The record shows that as on the date of the
accident as well as the date of presentation of the claim
petition, the petitioner - Ashok was aged about 35 years.
It is necessary to note that in Ex.P4, which is the
document that came into existence soon after the
accident, when the injured was produced before the Civil
Assistant Surgeon for medical examination, his age was
recorded as 33 years. Further, in his deposition also, the
petitioner has stated that he was aged about 33 years at
the time of the accident. Even in paragraph No.19 of the
impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has recorded
a finding that the petitioner was aged 33 years as on the
date of the accident.
- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
94. It is true that in the cause title of the judgment
and award of the Tribunal, the age of the petitioner -
Ashok is shown as 55 years. However, the same is
contrary to the other material available on record. Be that
as it may, the material on record clearly establishes that
as on the date of the accident, the petitioner - Ashok was
below 40 years of age and was self-employed. Therefore,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay
4
Sethi , 40% of the assessed income of the petitioner is
required to be added towards future prospects.
95. The assessed income of the petitioner - Ashok
is Rs.15,500/- per month. Accordingly, 40% thereof
works out to Rs.6,200/-. On adding the same to the
assessed monthly income, the total monthly income works
out to Rs.21,700/-. If the same is multiplied by 12, the
4
2017 (16) SCC 680
- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
annual income of the petitioner works out to
Rs.2,60,400/-. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi
5
Transport Corporation , the appropriate multiplier
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case is 16. Therefore, if the annual income of the
petitioner which is assessed at Rs.2,60,400/-, is multiplied
by 16, it works out to Rs.41,66,400/-. Again it is
necessary to note that the functional disability of the
petitioner is assessed at 45%. 45% of Rs.41,66,400/-
works out to Rs.18,74,880/-. This is the amount to which
the petitioner is entitled to under the head loss of future
income because of permanent physical impairment.
96. At paragraph No.21 of the impugned judgment,
the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- each under
the non-pecuniary heads namely pain and suffering, food
and nourishment, transportation, loss of amenities and
5
(2009) 6 SCC 121
- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
future medical expenses and Rs.800/- towards attendant
charges. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.1,44,108/-
towards medical expenses. As regards medical expenses,
the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,44,108/- after considering
the medical bills collectively marked as Ex.P10. The
petitioner - Ashok has not produced any further material
to establish that he incurred medical expenses in excess of
the amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards medical expenses is maintained.
97. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the non-pecuniary heads, however, is on the lower
side. The photographs at Ex.P11 clearly demonstrate the
severity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Having
regard to the nature of injuries, the petitioner must have
undergone considerable pain and suffering and would also
have been required to take nutritious and protein-rich food
during the period of treatment. The record further shows
that the petitioner remained admitted as an inpatient from
- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
04.03.2023 to 10.04.2023. During such prolonged
hospitalization, his family members would necessarily have
had to travel to and from the hospital and attend to him,
thereby incurring expenses towards transportation and
incidental necessities. These aspects also require to be
duly considered while determining just compensation.
98. Having regard to the nature and severity of the
injuries, the resultant permanent disability and the
consequent deprivation of several amenities and comforts
of life including the ability to walk, run and sit cross-
legged with ease, this Court is of the opinion that the
compensation under the aforesaid non-pecuniary heads
requires enhancement. Accordingly, if the compensation
under each of these heads namely pain and suffering, food
and nourishment, transportation charges and special
amenities is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/-,
the ends of justice would be met. The Tribunal has
awarded Rs.800/- towards attendant charges and if the
- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
same is enhanced Rs.10,000/-, the ends of justice would
be met.
99. Having regard to the nature and extent of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the
opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future
medical expenses would be just and reasonable instead of
Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, it is made
clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest
on the amount awarded towards future medical expenses.
The impugned judgment and award do not award any
compensation towards loss of income during the period of
treatment. The record reveals that the petitioner
underwent inpatient treatment from 04.03.2023 to
10.04.2023. Thus, he remained admitted in the hospital
for about 36 days. Besides, it is common knowledge that
a person, who sustains a fracture of the leg cannot
immediately resume his normal activities upon discharge
from the hospital. On the contrary, having regard to the
nature of such injury, he would ordinarily be advised to
- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
take rest for a further period. Having regard to the nature
of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the period of
treatment, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner –
Ashok is entitled to Rs.45,000/- towards loss of income
during the laid-up period.
100. Therefore, the compensation payable to the
petitioner – Ashok is worked out as follows:
Sl. Heads Compensation
awarded by
the Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Loss of future income
because of permanent
physical impairment
Rs.9,21,600/- Rs.18,74,880/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.1,44,108/- Rs.1,44,108/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
4. Food and nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
5. Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
7. Future medical Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/-
expenses
8. Loss of income during - Rs.45,000/-
laid up period
9. Attendant charges Rs.800/- Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.11,16,508/- Rs.22,43,988/-
Difference amount Rs.11,27,480/-
- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
Note:- The Tribunal has wrongly calculated the total
compensation at Rs.11,17,308/- instead of
Rs.11,16,508/-.
Liability
101. The principal contention of the Insurance
Company is that the driver of the offending lorry did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date
of the accident. Therefore, according to the Insurance
Company, the liability ought not to have been fastened
upon it. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
has also contended that the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid permit to ply at the place where the
accident occurred.
102. The record reveals that the offending lorry
bears registration No.TS-07-UA-4724. The prefix “TS”
denotes registration in the State of Telangana. The
vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle. Ex.P2 – complaint
further shows that the case was registered at Sadasivpet
- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
Police Station, Sangareddy District, Telangana State. Be
that as it may, after institution of the present appeal, the
injured - Ashok filed I.A.No.1/2026 under Order XLI Rule
27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to
produce additional documents. Along with the said
application, photocopies of the driving licence of the driver
namely Mohd. Zameer S/o. Syed Mainuddin and the
permit relating to the offending vehicle have been
produced. These documents are available on record.
103. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
would contend that the said documents are only
photocopies and were not marked in evidence before the
Tribunal. Therefore, according to him, no reliance can be
placed upon them.
104. At the first blush, the contention urged by the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company may appear
attractive. However, when examined in the light of the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Rani
- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
and Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
6
and Others , the said contention cannot be accepted. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “strict rules of pleadings
and evidence are not applicable in their full rigour to
proceedings relating to claims under the Motor Vehicles
Act”. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court cannot expect the injured
claimant to independently procure and produce the
original documents relating to the driving licence and
permit.
105. It is further significant to note that the
Insurance Company itself has produced the insurance
policy, which was in force as on the date of the accident.
In Kamala Mangalal Vayani and Others vs. Oriental
7
Insurance Company Limited and Others , the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held in substance that “once the currency
of the insurance policy is established and the insurer seeks
6
(2009) 13 SCC 654
7
(2010) 12 SCC 488
- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
to avoid its liability on the ground of breach of policy
conditions, the burden lies upon the insurer to establish
such breach”. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, once the existence and validity of the insurance
policy as on the date of the accident are not in dispute, it
was for the Insurance Company to establish its specific
allegations that the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the
vehicle did not possess a valid permit.
106. Nevertheless, the record reveals that except
raising such contentions, the Insurance Company has not
made any effective effort to substantiate the alleged
breach of the policy conditions. The charge sheet
marked as Ex.P5, at Sl. No.12 reflects the name of Syed
Zameer S/o. Syed Moinuddin as the driver, who was
driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
The petitioner has produced a photocopy of the driving
licence of Mohd. Zameer S/o. Syed Moinuddin. There is a
slight variation in the spelling of the name. However,
- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
when the address mentioned in the charge sheet in
respect of the accused and the address of the person in
whose favour the driving licence has been issued are
compared, they are found to be one and the same.
Further, the driving licence shows that the said person was
authorised to drive a transport vehicle from 20.05.2021 to
20.05.2026.
107. It is relevant to note that the accident had
occurred on 04.03.2023. Thus, as on the date of the
accident, the person who was driving the offending vehicle
was holding a valid driving licence. Further, the petitioner
has produced a photocopy of the certificate of registration
of the offending vehicle along with I.A.No.1/2026 filed
under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. The said document
shows that the permit in respect of the offending vehicle
was issued on 24.02.2015 and was valid up to
23.02.2024. Again, it is relevant to note that the accident
had occurred on 04.03.2023. Therefore, even on the date
of the accident, the offending vehicle had a valid permit to
- 64 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
be plied on the public roads throughout the State of
Telangana. The accident in question had also occurred in
the State of Telangana. Having regard to the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the Insurance Company namely
Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited
cannot disown its liability to satisfy the award.
108. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner in
MFA No.204050/2025 is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award passed by Tribunal in
MVC No.466/2023 is modified to the aforesaid
extent.
iii. The appellant/petitioner namely Ashok shall be
entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.11,27,480/-
with interest at the rate of 6%
- 65 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10729
MFA No. 204050 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 204204 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030108082025
per annum from the date of claim petition till its
realization expect the compensation awarded
towards future medical expenses at
Rs.50,000/-.
iv. The appeal filed by the appellant – Chola
Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited
in MFA No.204204/2025 is dismissed.
v. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation within six
weeks from receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
vi. The amount in deposit in MFA No.204204/2025
be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(BRUNGESH M)
JUDGE
BL/SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
CT: AK