Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: While considering an appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the I Additional Small Causes Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the appellant, a 25-year-old fish vendor, in an accident case, a division Bench of Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ., enhanced the compensation from ₹3,20,488 to ₹4,61,845, holding that the Tribunal had failed to adequately account for the claimant’s functional disability and its impact on his occupation.
Background
On 22 December 2016, the appellant was riding his motorcycle at around 4.45 a.m. and a car driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, collided with his motorcycle. Due to this, the appellant fell and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was then taken to the hospital and was later shifted to another one for further treatment.
He suffered a head injury and was treated from 22 December 2016 to 30 December 2016. He also underwent surgery. In view of the injuries sustained, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal which found that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹3,20,488 along with interest at 9 per cent per annum.
The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s award on the following three grounds:
-
the notional income was wrongly taken at ₹8,000 per month;
-
the disability awarded should have been higher, given the documents produced and the evidence adduced; and
-
the amounts awarded under various heads including pain and agony, loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities, as well as under other non-pecuniary heads, were not adequate.
Respondent 2-Insurance Company conceded that the notional income of the appellant was wrongly taken and that it should have been at ₹9,500 per month for the accident of the year 2016. However, it was contended that since there was no surgery and only conservative treatment was advised by the doctor, the other amounts awarded were not required to be interfered with.
Issue and Analysis
The Court stated that the only issue involved in the case at hand was whether or not the impugned award required any interference?
The Court held that it was undisputed that the notional income for the year 2016 was ₹9,500 per month as per the Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Thus, the amount was to be reassessed accordingly.
Regarding the award on pain and agony, as well as food and attendant charges, given the injuries stated, the amounts awarded were required to be enhanced, given the fact that several injuries were sustained which required hospitalisation and surgery.
The Court took into account appellant’s wound certificate and the doctor’s opinion that in view of his disability, it would be difficult for him to carry out his vocation and stated that “there cannot be any dispute that the appellant did suffer severe injuries which have led to physical disability, and owing to the nature of his job, functional disability as well”.
The Court stated that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the disability to the whole body only because the doctor was not the treating doctor. Relying on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Court stated that 8 per cent disability to the whole body would be appropriate. Thus, the Court stated that owing to the loss of earning capacity, the compensation should be ₹1,64,160. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Court enhanced the award towards pain and suffering to ₹40,000.
Further, the Court stated that the loss of amenities would also be proportionately enhanced. Considering that the appellant took treatment for 9 days in the hospital, obtained conservative treatment, and that he would not be able attend to his regular work for at least two months, the Court stated that amount on the head loss of income during laid up period for two months should be proportionately enhanced.
Regarding the medical expenses, the Court stated that no interference was warranted as the awarded compensation was based on medical bills and prescriptions produced.
Decision
Hence, the Court stated that the appellant was entitled to total compensation of ₹4,61,845 along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Accordingly, the Court modified the impugned order and allowed the petition in part.
[Mohammad Farooq v. Nandisha H. S., Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4354 of 2019 (MV-I), decided on 11-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: B. H. Sunitha and Suresh M. Latur., Advocates
For the Respondent: B. Pradeep, Advocate
