Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
Yallappa S/o. Basavanneppa Kabber – Appellant
Versus
Divya Sridharan S/o. Sridharan – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23962 OF 2013 (MV)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE
Compensation for injuries must reflect severity and future earning loss, with courts required to assess claims sensitively.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation for injuries sustained in an accident - The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,03,754/- which was deemed insufficient given the nature of injuries including spinal cord fracture and traumatic brain injury - The appeal sought enhancement of compensation. (Paras 1, 6, 19)
(B) Legal Principles - Compensation must reflect the severity of injuries and loss of future earnings due to disability must be considered - The court emphasized the need for sensitivity in assessing claims and the importance of not rejecting claims based on minor contradictions in evidence. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The claimant suffered severe injuries in an accident on 10.12.2011, including a spinal cord fracture and traumatic brain injury, leading to significant impairment and loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.1,03,754/- as compensation. (Paras 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found the Tribunal's compensation inadequate and enhanced it to Rs.4,91,474/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing the petition. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of compensation awarded for pain, suffering, loss of future earnings, and the Tribunal's approach to evidence. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for loss of future earnings due to disability and emphasized the need for a compassionate approach in assessing damages. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: The appeal is allowed in part, and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.4,91,474/- with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant suffered severe injuries (Para 3) |
| 2. details of injuries sustained (Para 4) |
| 3. court's view on compensation (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. error in not awarding compensation (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. total compensation awarded (Para 19) |
| 6. order of the court (Para 20) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed in MVC No.124/2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court.
3. The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case.
4. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries.
“1. Fracture of spinal cord.
2. Traumatic brain injury.”
5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under:
| Sl. No. | Heads. | Amount in (Rs.) |
| 1. | Towards pain and suffering. | 25,000 |
| 2. | Towards diet, nourishment food and attendant charges | 1,500 |
| 3. | Towards loss of earning during period of treatment | 1,500 |
| 4. | Towards medical expenses | 55,754 |
| 5. | Towards loss of amenities | 20,000 |
| Total: | 1,03,754 |
6. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, compensation awarded by Tribunal is on lesser side. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award.
7. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering appears to be on lower side. The same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
8. Compensation towards medical expenses of Rs.55,754/- awarded by the Tribunal is as per the medical bills and records. Hence the same is kept intact.
9. The Tribunal has awarded meager compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. The same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-.
10. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head ‘loss of future earnings due to disability’ on the ground that there is contradictory evidence between the claimant and doctor. The claimant has suffered fracture of spinal cord and traumatic brain injury. Due to the said fracture and injury, the nervous system motor functions are affected and also it affects the earning capacity of the claimant. The claimant-PW.2 is an agriculturist, which is cited by the Tribunal. Ex.P59 is the disability certificate and PW.3 is the doctor, who has issued the disability certificate. The doctor has stated that since the claimant had suffered fracture of spinal cord, there is no strength in the right hand movements and is not able to work after the accident. The claimant had also suffered impairment, therefore, the claimant is not able to walk and stand on his legs.
11. Considering the fact that the claimant was an agriculturist, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not considering the case properly and appreciating the evidence on record. Just because, there is some minor contradictory evidence between the evidence of PW.2-claimant and PW.3- doctor, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the claimant in that regard. This shows insensitivity on the part of the Tribunal while considering the case, as if considering the case beyond reasonable doubt, which is incorrect approach.
12. In the present case, this Court has to consider the case on all its preponderance of probabilities while appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not considering the case properly and appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability.
13. The accident occurred on 10.12.2011. PW.3-doctor has given evidence and also in Ex.P59-disability certificate it is stated that the claimant has suffered 40% disability on the right uppe
