Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27376

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J
Zakir Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 367 OF 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ambika M
For the Respondents: Manjula N Tejaswi

Functional disability assessment must consider the claimant's specific occupation and the impact of the impairment upon it. Where pre-accident income is proven, claimants aged 40-50 are entitled to 25% future prospects, and compensation for medical needs should be based on credible expert evidence of actual required treatment costs.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Contributory negligence - Amputation of limb - Assessment of compensation - Determination of functional disability - Future prospects - Future medical expenses.

(B) Contributory negligence - Burden of proof - A passenger traveling in a public transport vehicle who keeps a body part outside the window at the time of a road traffic accident acts in a negligent manner contributing to the resulting injury.

(C) Assessment of disability - Determining functional disability involves assessing the impact of the permanent impairment on the specific professional tasks of the claimant; when an occupation requires the use of the amputated member, the functional disability percentage is significantly higher than the physical disability of the whole body.

(D) Future prospects - Where a claimant has established their pre-accident income, they are entitled to an addition of 25% towards future prospects if aged between 40 to 50 years.

Facts of the case:
The claimant was a passenger in a public transport vehicle involved in a collision with a goods vehicle, resulting in the amputation of his right forearm. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation, alleging he was wrongly attributed with contributory negligence and that the tribunal erred in assessing his income, functional disability, and future medical expenses.

Findings of Court:
The court found that evidence from the complaint and charge sheet established the claimant was traveling with his hand outside the window, justifying a 10% attribution of contributory negligence. The court reassessed the functional disability at 75% given the nature of the claimant’s occupation, granted 25% towards future prospects, and increased the compensation for future medical expenses based on expert estimation provided for an artificial limb.

Issues: The main issues were whether the claimant contributed to the negligence, the appropriate assessment of functional disability, the correctness of the income determination, the entitlement to future prospects, and the quantum of future medical expenses for a prosthetic limb.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the claimant contributed 10% to the negligence, the functional disability must reflect the loss of earning capacity specific to the claimant's occupation. The court prioritized expert evidence regarding the necessity and actual cost of specialized prosthetic equipment over lower, generalized estimates.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.3914/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, SCCH-4, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS M.F.A HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.06.2026, THIS DAY, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.3914/2015 by XVIII Additional Judge and Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru -(SCCH-04).

The facts leading to file claim petition are as under:

a) On 27.05.2015 at about 05.45 p.m., at NH 150 (a) road near Chikammanahally Village, Challakere, Chitradurga District, when the claimant was traveling in KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-36/F-1221, at that time the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA -35/B -3689 drove the said lorry in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against NEKRTC bus. Due to the said impact, the claimant's hand was cut and he was taken to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as inpatient. The claimant spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, food, nourishment etc.

b) The claimant contended that he was working as an Effluent Treatment Plant Operator in Eco Soft Water Technologies, Bengaluru and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity.

c) Respondent No.1 is insurer and respondent No.2 is owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-35/B-3689 and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

d) Respondent No.1 –Insurer has filed objections denying the alleged accident had taken place due to sole negligence and rash driving of driver of the lorry and it is contributory negligence of both the driver of the alleged lorry and the claimant since, the claimant was traveling in the bus keeping his hand outside the window.

e) Respondent No.3 –KSRTC contended that it is not necessary party. The accident has taken place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-35/B-3689.

f) On the basis of the above pleading, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 27.05.2015 at about 5.45 p.m., on NH.150(a) Road near Chikkammanahalli Village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga Distirct, within the jurisdiction of Thalak Police Station, Chitradurga, while the petitioner was traveling in NEKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-35-B-3689, resulting in injury to the petitioner in the accident?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which respondent?

3. What Order or Award?

The claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. The doctor has been examined as P.W.2 and got marked documents as Ex.P20 to Ex.P24. One more witness P.W.3 has been examined and got marked document as Ex.P24. The Chartered Accountant has been examined as P.W.4 and got marked documents as Ex.P25 to Ex.P27. The Manager of Ecosoft Water Technologies has been examined as P.W.5 and got marked documents as Ex.P28 to Ex.P31. The driver of KSRTC bus has been examined as R.W.1 and no documents are marked on respondent's side.

The Tribunal after hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence on record has answered issue No.1 in affirmative, issue No.2 partly in affirmative and allowed the petition in part awarding the compensation as under:

a) The Tribunal has assessed the contributed negligence on the part of the claimant at 10% and on the part of the driver at 90%. The Tribunal has awarded the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Tribunal has directed respondent No.1 -insurer of the lorry to pay 90% of the above said compens

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27376

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAShivashankar Amarannavar, JZakir Ahmed – AppellantVersusUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd. – RespondentMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 367 OF 2020

Cases Referred (1)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J
Zakir Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 367 OF 2020