Kiran Raj

The Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi bench, has modified the compensation awarded to a petitioner in a motor vehicle accident case, reducing the amount from Rs.10,11,000 to Rs.4,54,800. The court examined the Tribunal’s reasoning and determined that it had not properly assessed the nature of injuries and their impact on functional disability. The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Karnataka Judicial Academy for inclusion in judicial training programs.

The case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 27, 2015, at approximately 11:30 p.m. The driver of a Bolero Jeep, bearing registration number KA-38-M-2752, lost control of the vehicle while driving at high speed, causing it to fall into a roadside ditch. The petitioner, who was a passenger in the vehicle, sustained grievous injuries, including fractures to the femur, radius, and ulna. He was initially treated at a government hospital in Aurad, then transferred to a higher medical facility in Bidar, and subsequently admitted to Max Cure Hospital in Hyderabad for further treatment.

The petitioner filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Aurad-B, seeking compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income due to permanent disability. The claim was made against the vehicle’s owner and its insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that the Bolero Jeep was authorized only for personal use, but the petitioner had been traveling as a fare-paying passenger, which constituted a violation of the insurance policy. The insurer also asserted that the driver did not possess a valid license at the time of the accident. Additionally, the insurance company contended that the compensation sought by the petitioner was excessive and not supported by sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal framed several issues for consideration, including whether the accident occurred due to the driver’s negligence, whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries as a result of the accident, and whether the insurance company had established that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner, rejecting the insurer’s objections and awarding Rs.10,11,000 in compensation under multiple heads.

The Karnataka High Court examined the Tribunal’s judgment and found that it lacked a proper assessment of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The court stated:

"The perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that nowhere in the entire judgment, the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner is described."

The court noted that the Tribunal had referred to the petitioner’s injuries as “grievous” but had not specified the extent of the injuries or how they contributed to functional disability. The judgment recorded:

"It is relevant to note that the impugned judgment refers to the injuries as grievous injuries, but it nowhere mentioned what are those grievous injuries, which of them have contributed to the functional disability of the petitioner."

The High Court further found that the Tribunal’s calculations for loss of future income were inconsistent. The court recorded:

"While considering Ex.P.34 - disability certificate issued by PW.2, it only narrates what has been stated by PW.2, but abruptly it comes to the conclusion that it has no hesitation to hold that the disability to the limb is 20%, even though PW.2 states that it is 31%."

The High Court noted that there was no explanation in the Tribunal’s judgment regarding why the disability assessment was reduced from 31% to 20%. The judgment further stated:

"It is not known why this 1/3rd has been deducted. While considering Ex.P.34 - disability certificate issued by PW.2, it only narrates what has been stated by PW.2, but abruptly it comes to the conclusion that it has no hesitation to hold that the disability to the limb is 20%, even though PW.2 states that it is 31%."

The court examined the evidence and held that the petitioner had sustained a compound Grade-I comminuted intra-articular fracture of radius and ulna, leading to non-union and deformity in the right ulna. The court recorded that the petitioner underwent multiple medical procedures, including internal fixation with a tubular plate. Based on the nature of injuries and expert medical testimony, the court determined that a 20% functional disability should be applied for compensation calculations.

The court referred to guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) for determining notional income in accident cases and held that the petitioner’s income should be fixed at Rs.8,000 per month. The judgment stated:

"The guidelines issued by the KSLSA for settlement of disputes before Lok-Adalath prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2015."

The court applied a multiplier of 14, considering the petitioner’s age, and recalculated the compensation accordingly.

The Karnataka High Court issued the following order:

"The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,54,800/- instead of Rs.10,11,000/- for the total compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till the date of deposit."

The court further directed that the rest of the Tribunal’s order regarding deposit and procedural matters would remain unaltered. Additionally, the court ordered:

"Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Karnataka Judicial Academy for information in devising training programmes."

Case Title: The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Davkatte & Another
Case Number: MFA No. 200552 of 2020
Bench: Justice C M Joshi

[Read/Download order]