Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahesha vs Sri Krishnegowda on 10 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14184
M.F.A. No.693/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.693/2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESHA
S/O KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT. MARISHETTYHALLI
SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI
Digitally signed CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
by ARSHIFA HASSAN DISTRICT.
BAHAR KHANAM ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
(BY SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH AND
KARNATAKA
SMT. GEETHA M.R. ADVS.,)
AND:
1. SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O DAVEGOWDA, MAJOR
R/AT MARANAHALLI
MASALE HOSAHALLI POST
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO. 4/12, NAVEEN COMPLEX
1ST FLOOR, HEBBALA MAIN ROAD
METAGAHALLI, MYSORE CITY - 16.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV., FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14184
M.F.A. No.693/2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR LCR AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC 1761/2015
BY THE COURT OF THE 4TH ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT AT HASSAN (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA) BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE
CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.08.2017 passed in MVC No.1761/2015 by the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14184 M.F.A. No.693/2018 HC-KAR
3. Sri.R.P.Somashekaraiah and Smt.Geetha.M.R, learned counsels for the appellant submit that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income and disability of the claimant as no compensation is awarded under the head of loss of income due to disability. It is submitted that the Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record has awarded a meagre compensation under all the other heads, which is required to be enhanced. Hence, they seek to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment and award, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the appellant, learned counsel for the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:14184 M.F.A. No.693/2018 HC-KAR respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. The only point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference?"
7. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that on 16.08.2015 at 3.30 p.m. on B.M.Road near Kodibelagula gate, Channarayapatna Taluk, a car bearing Reg.No.KA-13-N-3891, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a TVS moped bearing Reg.No.KA-51-EL-6536, as a result of which, the appellant suffered grievous injuries. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'). In the said petition, the appellant examined witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P23. The respondents did not examine any witness but got marked Ex.R1-copy of -5- NC: 2026:KHC:14184 M.F.A. No.693/2018 HC-KAR Insurance policy. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record proceeded to pass the impugned order granting of Rs.9,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
8. The oral testimony of the claimant as well as PW-2 indicate that the appellant sustained open comminuted fracture distal 1/3rd of both bones of right leg with type 3 degloving injury on the same leg. The appellant was hospitalized from 16.08.2015 to 30.09.2015 and he was operated on 17.08.2015 for wound debridement and temporary fixation of external fixator. Despite the same, the whole lower 1/3rd of tibia exposed and hence, cross leg flap insitu was done 21.08.2015 by plastic surgery. However, despite all these treatments, the wound infection persisted. PW-2 - Doctor has further deposed that repeated wound debridement was done on 20.08.2015, 22.08.2015, 26.08.2015 and 31.08.2015 with cross-leg flap insitu. He also deposed that the claimant was advised for Llizarov fixator for bone graft, however, -6- NC: 2026:KHC:14184 M.F.A. No.693/2018 HC-KAR the bone was not united and hence, the injured-claimant was readmitted on 05.12.2015 and was discharged on 18.12.2015. It was also deposed that the claimant was once again admitted on 26.04.2016 and a limb was fixed with Llizarov fixator for union of fracture and he was discharged on 28.06.2016 with an advise to turn the bolt of fixture, dress wounds and review once a week. The records indicate that the claimant was again admitted on 18.01.2017 and was treated till 03.03.2017 and as per the evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal assessed the disability to an extent of 45% to the lower limbs and considering the same, further assessed the disability to an extent of 15% to the whole body. In my considered view, taking note of the fracture and injury suffered and the reasons assigned by PW-2, it would be appropriate to assess the disability at 18% to the whole body. The claimant was aged about 40 years and claimed to have been earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. from agriculture and business. However, no evidence was placed to prove the same and hence, his income is -7- NC: 2026:KHC:14184 M.F.A. No.693/2018 HC-KAR assessed at Rs.9000/- p.m. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal, without any justifiable reason has refused to award compensation under the head of loss of income due to disability, which is not in consonance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases. Hence, the compensation towards loss of future income due to disability is assessed as under:
(Rs.9,000 x 12 x 15 x 18%) = Rs.2,91,600/-
9. I am also of the considered view that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering requires to be enhanced. Furthermore, the Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount under the head of loss of income during the laid up period.
However, in view of re-appreciating the pleading and evidence on record, the same is required to be re- assessed. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, the award of compensation by the Tribunal is required to be re-assessed as follows:
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:14184 M.F.A. No.693/2018 HC-KAR HEADS AMOUNT (In Rs.) Pain & suffering 2,00,000 Medical bills 3,65,000 Future Medical Surgery 1,00,000 Loss of income during laid up 54,000 period (Rs.9000 x 6 months) Loss of future income due to 2,91,600 disability Loss of amenities, conveyance, 2,00,000 food and nourishment and attendant charges Food, nourishment, conveyance 50,000 and attendant charges Total 12,60,600 Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,60,600/- as against Rs.9,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated 17.08.2017 passed in MVC No.1761/2015 by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to a total -9- NC: 2026:KHC:14184 M.F.A. No.693/2018 HC-KAR compensation of Rs.12,60,600/- as against Rs.9,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
d) The respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1