SMT.RAMALAXMI vs VENKATESH N AND ORS

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200197 OF 2018 (MV-I)


BETWEEN:

SMT. RAMALAXMI W/O LATE BOYA KOSIGAIAH,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE PANDAVAGALLU,
R/O. 4-4-196/2, ASHOK NAGAR,
NEAR B.R.B. CHOWK, RAICHUR-585 401.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. VENKATESH N. S/O NARSANNA KULLALURU,
AGE: 29 YEARS, R/O. AT POST: RAJOLI,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-585 401.

2. MEHABOOB PASHA S/O MAQBOOLSAB,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O. AT POST: RAJOLI,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-585 401,
(OWNER OF HONDA UNICORN NO.KA-36/EC-4993).

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
11/9/5, FIRST FLOOR, KATKAM KRISTAIAH
COMPLEX, CITY TALKIES ROAD, RAICHUR-585 401.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)










Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA S
D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018



THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.382/2015 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT
RAICHUR. B) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.382/2015 BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND MACT AT RAICHUR AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
FROM RS.2,36,000/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.15,95,000/-
WITH 12% INTEREST AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRUNGESH M

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the appellant - Smt.
Ramalaxmi, questioning the correctness and legality of the
judgment and award dated 16.06.2017 passed by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Raichur,
in MVC No.382/2015.
2. The appellant-Smt.Ramalaxmi, was the
petitioner, and the present respondents Nos.1 to 3 were
respondents Nos.1 to 3, respectively, before the Tribunal
in MVC No.382/2015. For the sake of convenience and

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


clarity, and to avoid any confusion, the parties are referred
to by their respective ranks before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioner- Smt.Ramalaxmi, filed MVC No.
382/2015 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained
by her in a road traffic accident that occurred on
25.06.2014. The petitioner alleged before the Tribunal
that, on 25.06.2014, at about 7:30 p.m., she was
proceeding on foot with a water pot to fetch water at
Pandavagallu Village, Adoni Mandal, Andhra Pradesh. She
was walking along the edge of the road when the rider of a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-36/EC-4993
(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) rode
the same at high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against her, thereby caused the
accident.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner,
Ramalaxmi, that she sustained injuries to her head, chest,
back, face, hands and legs in the accident. Immediately

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


after the accident, she was shifted to the Government
Area Hospital, Adoni, and thereafter to Padmachandra
Super Specialty Hospital, Kurnool, for better treatment.
She underwent inpatient treatment until 14.07.2014. She
further contended that she underwent surgery for removal
of a blood clot from her brain and has been undergoing
regular treatment, as she continues to suffer from
permanent physical impairment.
5. The petitioner further contended that, prior to
the accident, she was working as a coolie and earning
Rs.250/- per day. Owing to the permanent physical
impairment sustained in the accident, she claimed that her
earning capacity had been completely impaired. She
further contended that the accident occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle. On
these grounds, she sought suitable compensation by filing
MVC No.382/2015.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


6. After presentation of the petition, the same
came to be registered, and notices were issued to the
respondents. The respondents entered appearance before
the Tribunal. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not file
their written statements. Respondent No.3, namely
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, filed its written
statement, contending, inter alia, that the police had filed
a false charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle
and that the accident had occurred due to the negligence
of the petitioner herself. It was further contended that the
rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the accident and,
therefore, the liability could not be fastened on the
Insurance Company. On these and other grounds,
respondent No.3 sought dismissal of the petition.
7. After completion of the pleadings, the learned
Tribunal framed three issues for its consideration.
Thereafter, the learned Tribunal afforded reasonable
opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence. The

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


petitioner, Smt. Ramalaxmi, examined herself as PW-1. In
addition, she examined Dr.Rajendra Kothari,
Smt. Siddamma and Shivakumar Swamy as PWs.2, 3 and
4, respectively. The petitioner got marked 12 documents
as Exs.P-1 to P-12. The Insurance Company examined
one of its officials, namely, Bhimanagowda, as RW-1.
Respondent No. 3 got marked two documents as Exs.R-1
and R-2.
8. After completion of the evidence, the learned
Tribunal heard the arguments of the learned advocates for
the respective parties and passed the judgment and award
dated 16.06.2017, awarding compensation of
Rs.2,36,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of the petition till realisation.
9. The learned Tribunal further fastened the
liability to satisfy the award on respondent No.3 - Oriental
Insurance Company Limited. Aggrieved by the judgment
and award dated 16.06.2017, the petitioner - Smt.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


Ramalaxmi has preferred the present appeal principally
challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded by
the learned Tribunal.
10. The learned advocate for the appellant-
petitioner would contend that the doctor assessed the
disability of the petitioner at 45% to the whole body.
However, the learned Tribunal, without assigning valid and
cogent reasons, reassessed the whole-body disability at
only 10%, thereby awarding inadequate compensation.
The learned advocate would further contend that the
learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the whole-body
disability at 45%. On these and other grounds, the learned
advocate seeks enhancement of the compensation.
11. Per contra, Sri S. S. Aspalli, learned advocate
for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, seeks to justify
the award passed by the learned Tribunal. He would
contend that the petitioner had not examined the doctor
who treated her but had examined another doctor.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


Therefore, according to the learned advocate, the learned
Tribunal was justified in assessing the whole-body
disability at 10%. He would further contend that the
assessment made by the learned Tribunal does not
warrant interference by this Court. On these and other
grounds, he seeks dismissal of the appeal by confirming
the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.
12. Heard the arguments of the learned advocates
for the respective parties. The trial court records have
been secured. This Court has perused the entire trial court
record and given its anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced at the Bar.
13. As observed above, the learned advocate for
the petitioner disputes the assessment of whole-body
disability made by the learned Tribunal. Per contra, the
Insurance Company seeks to justify the reassessment of
whole-body disability made by the learned Tribunal.
Therefore, before proceeding further, it is necessary for

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


this Court to examine the medical evidence available on
record.
14. It is necessary to note that the petitioner has
examined Dr. Rajendra Kothari, a neurosurgeon, as PW-2.
The record discloses that PW-2 filed his affidavit under
Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC in lieu of his examination-in-
chief. It further discloses that his evidence was recorded
through a Court Commissioner. PW-2 has deposed that,
on 09.02.2016, he examined the petitioner- Ramalaxmi,
and subjected her to an X-ray examination. Thereafter, he
assessed her disability at 45% to the whole body and
issued a disability certificate, which was marked as
Ex.P-10. PW-2 has further testified that the contents of
Ex.P-10 are true and correct.
15. The record further discloses that the learned
advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company
subjected PW-2 to cross-examination. During his cross-
examination, PW-2 admitted that he was not the doctor

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


who had treated the petitioner at any point of time. The
learned advocate for the Insurance Company has
particularly relied upon this admission. However, it is well
settled that merely because a doctor, who gives evidence
before the Court, is not the doctor who treated the injured
person, his evidence cannot, for that reason alone, be
discarded. The evidentiary value of such testimony must
be assessed in the light of the doctor's examination, the
medical records, the applicable guidelines and the
procedure followed in assessing the disability.
16. It is necessary to note that, during the cross-
examination of PW-2, it was suggested to him that he had
not followed the guidelines prescribed by the Central
Government. PW-2 denied the said suggestion. It was also
suggested that Ex.P-10 contained false information, PW-2
emphatically denied the same. Thus, except for putting
these suggestions to PW-2, the Insurance Company has
not elicited any favourable answers from him in support of
its contention. However, a plain perusal of the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


examination-in-chief of PW-2 discloses that he has not
stated anything in detail regarding the nature of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner, the clinical findings,
the basis for assessing the disability at 45% to the whole
body, or the methodology adopted in arriving at such an
assessment. He has merely stated that he issued the
disability certificate marked as Ex.P10.
17. The central judicial point is that the medical
findings in Ex.P10 must be evaluated in the context of the
injuries sustained by the claimant and the nature of the
work she performed before the accident. The medical
terminology should be explained, without diminishing the
seriousness of the documented findings.
18. This Court has carefully perused Ex.P10, the
disability certificate issued by Kothari Hospital, Kalaburagi.
At page 1 of the said exhibit, it is specifically recorded
that, when the petitioner, Smt. Ramalaxmi, appeared
before Dr.Rajendra Kothari, she complained of weakness

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


in her left upper and lower limbs and certain other
difficulties.
19. In the opinion of this Court, the complaints
made by the petitioner before the doctor cannot, by
themselves, be treated as conclusive proof of the extent of
her disability, as the possibility of exaggeration or feigning
of certain difficulties cannot be entirely ruled out.
However, the medical findings recorded by the doctor
require independent consideration.
20. Under the heading “On Examination,” the
doctor has recorded several findings concerning the
petitioner's physical condition. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant findings are reproduced below:
1. The patient is slow in understanding
commands.
2. Her pulse, respiration and temperature are
within normal limits.
3. A craniotomy wound is present on the right
side in the FTP region. Tenderness is
present over the wound, the bone is

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


depressed, and hypoesthesia around the
scar is noted.
4. Left-sided facial paresis is noted.
5. The left upper and lower limbs show grade 4
power, hypotonia, hyperreflexia, stiffness of
joint movements and incoordination of fine
movements, all of which are suggestive of
upper motor neuron paresis.
6. Her gait is unstable and waddling, and she
requires support while walking.
7. Partial loss of hearing in the right ear is
noted on Rinne's and Weber's tests.
8. She requires assistance in carrying out day-
to-day activities.

21. Now, it is Apt to explain the medical
terminologies The term paresis refers to partial weakness
or a reduction in the power of voluntary movement. It
does not necessarily mean a complete inability to move a
limb. In simple terms, it indicates that the strength of the
affected limb is reduced.
22. Further, Ex.P10 refers to hyperreflexia. The
term hyperreflexia means abnormally brisk or exaggerated
reflexes. Normally, when a doctor taps a tendon near the

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


knee or elbow with a reflex hammer, the corresponding
muscle produces a small, involuntary movement. In
hyperreflexia, the response is more pronounced than
normal.
23. Hyperreflexia may be associated with disorders
affecting the brain or spinal cord and the nerve pathways
controlling reflexes. It may also be observed in other
conditions affecting the central nervous system. Therefore,
this finding must be assessed in the context of the other
neurological signs recorded in the disability certificate.
24. In view of the foregoing medical findings, the
medical terminology employed by the doctor in Ex.P10
cannot be treated casually or lightly. Due weight must be
given to these findings while assessing the extent of the
petitioner's disability and its impact on her functional
capacity. Such assessment must also take into
consideration the nature of the occupation pursued by the
petitioner before the accident and the extent to which her

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


injuries affect her ability to perform the duties associated
with that occupation.
25. Ex.P10 further records the presence of a
craniotomy wound on the right side. A craniotomy is a
surgical procedure in which a portion of the skull is
temporarily removed to provide access to the brain. The
word comprises two parts: “ cranio ,” meaning skull, and
“ tomy ,” meaning cutting or making an incision.

26. During a craniotomy, the surgeon makes an
incision in the scalp and removes a portion of it. The term
28. The medical findings recorded in Ex.P10 indicate that
the petitioner had sustained a head injury which required
surgical intervention by way of a craniotomy. Therefore,
due importance must be given to the said injury, and its
consequences cannot be brushed aside as insignificant.
27. Having regard to the above, unless this Court
understands the residual consequences of the craniotomy

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


and the paresis suffered by the petitioner, it would not be
possible to properly assess whether she has sustained
permanent physical impairment and, if so, the extent of
such impairment.
28. It is necessary to note that craniotomy is
associated with certain risks, which may broadly be
classified as immediate postoperative complications and
long-term consequences. The immediate complications
may include bleeding within the brain or beneath the
scalp, infection involving the surgical wound or bone flap,
and swelling of the brain, which may give rise to further
medical complications.
29. Another serious complication that may arise
following a craniotomy is the occurrence of seizures. A
person who develops recurrent seizures may experience
epileptic attacks at varying intervals. In the considered
opinion of this Court, if a person engaged in coolie work or
agricultural labour suffers from recurrent seizures, the

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


same may substantially interfere with the person's ability
to concentrate on and safely perform agricultural
operations and other physically demanding tasks
associated with such work.
30. The long-term consequences of a craniotomy
may include weakness of the arm and leg on one side of
the body, speech impairment and memory difficulties,
depending upon the location of the brain injury and the
nature of the surgical intervention.
31. Keeping these medical consequences in view, it
is once again necessary to note that, in Ex.P10, the doctor
has specifically recorded left-sided facial paresis and
reduced power in the left upper and lower limbs. The
doctor has further observed that the said findings are
suggestive of upper motor neuron paresis. Thus, there is
consistency between the neurological findings recorded in
Ex.P10 and the possible residual consequences associated

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


with the underlying head injury and the surgical
intervention undertaken to treat it.
32. Therefore, upon evaluating the medical
evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion
that the assessment made by Dr. Rajendra Kothari- P.W.2,
cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the
petitioner has not demonstrated complete loss of function
of the affected limbs. However, to properly appreciate the
extent of the petitioner's permanent physical impairment,
it is necessary to examine the other clinical findings
recorded in Ex.P10.
33. It is further necessary to note that, in Ex.P10,
the doctor has recorded that the petitioner's gait, that is,
her manner of walking, is unstable and that she requires
support while walking.
34. These findings assume particular significance in
the present case. The petitioner was engaged in
agricultural coolie work before the accident. Such work

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


ordinarily requires a person to walk steadily, maintain
physical balance and perform various manual activities for
sustained periods. When the petitioner herself requires
support to walk, it becomes difficult to expect her to
continue performing the physically demanding duties
associated with agricultural labour in the same manner as
before the accident. Therefore, due importance must be
given to the functional limitations experienced by the
petitioner while assessing the impact of her injuries upon
her earning capacity.
35. A careful reading of the cross-examination of
Dr. Rajendra Kothari-P.W.2, makes it clear that the
learned advocate for the insurance company has put only
general suggestions to the witness. However, P.W.2 has
specifically and emphatically denied those suggestions. In
the opinion of this Court, nothing worthwhile has been
elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to disbelieve his
evidence or the assessment made by him regarding the
petitioner's disability.

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


36. Therefore, this Court accepts the evidence of
the doctor. However, the evidence given by the doctor
before the Tribunal and his assessment of the percentage
of disability are from the medical standpoint. The Court
or Tribunal is required to evaluate the medical evidence in
the context of the nature of the occupation pursued by the
injured person before the accident and thereafter
determine whether the physical impairment has resulted in
functional disability.
37. As observed above, it is the consistent case of
the petitioner, Smt. Ramalaxmi, that, prior to the
accident, she was engaged in agricultural labour and was
earning Rs.250/- per day.
38. Therefore, the medical evidence must be
evaluated in the backdrop of the occupation pursued by
the petitioner before the accident. In the preceding
paragraphs, this Court has observed that the petitioner
suffers from paresis, which has resulted in weakness of

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


the affected limbs, and that her gait is considerably
affected and she requires support while walking.
39. It is also significant to note that, during the
cross-examination of P.W.2, the doctor, it was not even
suggested that he had given false evidence regarding
these findings. Therefore, there is no sufficient reason to
disbelieve the doctor's evidence in this regard.
40. In the considered opinion of this Court, when an
agricultural coolie requires support even to walk, it would
be unreasonable to expect her to continue performing the
physically demanding duties associated with agricultural
labour as she did before the accident. Therefore, the
permanent physical impairment sustained by the petitioner
would undoubtedly affect her ability to carry out her day-
to-day activities and earn her livelihood through her
previous occupation.
41. Having held so, this Court must also consider
another relevant aspect. Although the petitioner has

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


sustained considerable physical impairment, the possibility
of her pursuing some alternative occupation that can be
performed while sitting and thereby earning a livelihood
cannot be entirely ruled out.
42. However, even if the petitioner chooses an
alternative occupation, such as selling vegetables or
vending milk, she may still have to travel from her village
to a nearby town or city to procure the vegetables or milk
and thereafter return to the place where they are to be
sold or distributed. Such activities may also involve
considerable travel and physical effort. For these
purposes, the petitioner requires adequate mobility and
functional use of her limbs.
43. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the permanent physical impairment sustained
by the petitioner has a substantial bearing on her day-to-
day activities and earning capacity. Having regard to the
nature of her previous occupation, the physical demands

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


of that occupation and the limitations arising from her
injuries, the said impairment must be assessed in terms of
its impact on her functional capacity and earning capacity
44. The record discloses that, on 10 July 2023,
heated arguments were advanced by the learned
advocates before this Court. In view of the rival
submissions, this Court referred the petitioner, Smt.
Ramalaxmi, to the Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences
(RIMS) for reassessment of the percentage of her physical
impairment.
45. The record further discloses that, on several
occasions, this Court issued reminders to RIMS to submit
its report. In response, RIMS informed this Court that the
petitioner was suffering from uncontrolled seizures and
required further investigations, including an EEG and an
opinion from an epileptologist, as advised by the
neurosurgeon. However, as the requisite facilities were not

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


available at RIMS, the petitioner was referred to NIMHANS
for further evaluation.
46. On the present date of hearing, as well as on
the preceding date of hearing, the learned advocate for
the petitioner submitted that, owing to her medical
condition and financial constraints, the petitioner was
unable to visit NIMHANS and subject herself to further
medical examination. In view of these circumstances, the
learned advocate requested this Court to decide the
matter on its merits based on the evidence and other
materials available on record.
47. Upon evaluating the medical evidence available
on record to the best of its ability, this Court initially
considered the possibility that the petitioner might have
sustained whole-body disability in the range of 25% to
30%. However, the fact that the petitioner has not
undergone the further medical examination at NIMHANS,
despite the opportunity provided for that purpose, is also a

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


circumstance that this Court must take into consideration
while determining the appropriate percentage of disability.
48. In the circumstances, this Court is required to
strike a balance between the medical findings available on
record and the absence of the further medical assessment
sought by this Court.
49. Having regard to the medical significance of the
findings recorded in Ex.P10, the nature of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner and their likely consequences
on her physical and functional capacity, this Court is of the
considered opinion that, if the whole-body disability of the
petitioner, Smt. Ramalaxmi, is assessed at 20%, the
ends of justice would be met.
50. The material on record discloses that, the
petitioner was a Coolie and she was earning Rs.250/- per
day and accordingly her monthly income comes to
Rs.7,500/- Even in the absence of proof of income, the
notional as per the chart prepared by KSLSA is Rs.7,500/-

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


p.m. Therefore, the income of the petitioner is taken at
Rs.7,500/- p.m. As on the date of the accident, the
petitioner was aged about 54 years. Therefore, having
regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , 10% of the
established income is required to be added towards future
prospects.

51. Accordingly, 10% of Rs.7,500/- works out to
Rs.750/-. On adding the same to the established monthly
income of Rs.7,500/-, the monthly income for the purpose
of computation of loss of future income works out to
Rs.8,250/-.

52. Having regard to the age of the petitioner, the
appropriate multiplier applicable is 11. Accordingly, the
compensation payable towards loss of future income would
be Rs.8,250/- × 12 × 11 x 20%, which works out to
Rs.2,17,800/-, same is rounded off to Rs.2,18,000/-.

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


53. The record discloses that the petitioner was
admitted to the hospital as an inpatient from 26.06.2014
to 08.07.2014. Thus, she underwent inpatient treatment
for approximately 13 days. The Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards transportation expenses. Having
regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year
2014 and that the petitioner's family members would have
had to travel to the hospital to attend to her during her
inpatient treatment, this Court is of the opinion that the
amount awarded under this head requires enhancement.

Rs.
Accordingly, if a sum of 10,000/- is awarded towards
transportation expenses, then the ends of justice would be
met.

Rs.
54. The Tribunal awarded a sum of 70,630/-
towards medical expenses after taking into consideration
the medical bills produced by the petitioner. The record
does not disclose that the petitioner produced any further
material to establish additional medical expenditure.
Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head.

Rs.
Accordingly, the sum of 70,630/- awarded towards
medical expenses is maintained.

Rs.
55. The Tribunal awarded a sum of 15,000/-
towards food and nourishment and attendant charges. It is
necessary to note that, at the time of the accident, the
petitioner was aged about 53 to 54 years and had
sustained a severe head injury necessitating a craniotomy.
Having regard to the nature of the injury and the surgical
intervention undertaken, she would have required
adequate nourishment during her recovery. Therefore,
having regard to the prevailing money value in the year
2014, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of
Rs.
10,000/- towards food and nourishment would be just
and reasonable.


56. If the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/- is


Rs.
deducted from the total amount of 15,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal under the two distinct heads of food and

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


nourishment and attendant charges, it would mean that

Rs.
only 5,000/- was awarded towards attendant charges.
It is once again necessary to note that the petitioner
underwent inpatient treatment for approximately 13 days
and was subjected to a craniotomy. Further, Ex.P10, the
disability certificate, records that she requires assistance
while walking. Having regard to these circumstances, this
Court can reasonably appreciate the physical condition of
the petitioner during her hospitalisation and the difficulties
she would have experienced following her discharge. This
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would have
required the assistance of an attendant throughout the
day for a period of four months. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.35,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.


57. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
towards pain and suffering. This Court finds the said
amount to be fair and reasonable and, accordingly,
maintains the same.

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018




58. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of amenities. As discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, the petitioner sustained a severe head injury
and underwent a craniotomy. The medical evidence further
indicates that she continues to experience neurological
difficulties, including weakness of the affected limbs and
difficulty in walking without support. These impairments
are likely to affect her ability to enjoy the ordinary
amenities of life. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the amount awarded towards loss of
amenities requires enhancement from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.40,000/-.
59. On re-assessment and re-determination, the
petitioner is entitled to following compensation:
Sl.
Compensatio
NO.
Heads n awarded
by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court

1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.70,630/- Rs.70,630/-
3. Loss of future
earning on account Rs.79,200/- Rs.2,18,000/-
of permanent

- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


disability
4. Loss of earning
during laid up Rs.6,000/- Rs.6,000/-
period
5. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Rs.40,000/-
6. Food, attendant and
Rs.15,000/- Rs.45,000/-
Nourishment
7. Transportation
Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.2,35,830/- Rs.4,39,630/-
Enhanced
compensation
Rs.2,03,800/-

60. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The judgment and award passed by Tribunal in
MVC No.382/2015 is modified to the aforesaid
extent.
iii. The appellant/petitioner shall be entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.2,03,800/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of claim petition till its realization.

- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11317
MFA No. 200197 of 2018


CNR: KAHC030015342018


iv. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.


v. On deposit of enhanced compensation, the
same shall be released in favour of the
petitioner on due identification.


Sd/-
(BRUNGESH M)
JUDGE



SRT,BL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
CT: AK