Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayana vs Sri D Ramesh on 10 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14182
M.F.A. No.278/2018
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.278/2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANA
S/O SRI. PERUMAL
Digitally signed AGE 44 YEARS
by ARSHIFA R/AT NO.46, VENKATESH LAKSHMIPURA
BAHAR KHANAM
LAKSHMIPURA, JIGANI HOBLI
Location: HIGH ANEKLA TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. D. RAMESH
S/O SRI. DORAI SWAMY
R/AT NO.3, 7TH MAIN ROAD
GARVEBHAVI PALYA
HONGASANDRA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560068.
2. SRI. K. RAMALINGA
S/O SRI. KALI MUTHU
NO.3, WARD NO.9, G.B.PALYA
BENGALURU-560068.
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14182
M.F.A. No.278/2018
HC-KAR
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:06.12.2021 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3238/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M & XXIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENTAL
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.03.2026, 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 injured-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 08.09.2017 passed in M.V.C. No.3238/2013 by the XXI A.C.M.M and XXIII A.S.C.J, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-25), (for short 'Tribunal') seeking for higher compensation.
2. Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing -3- NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR the income of the injured-appellant. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of PW-1 and other medical records. It is further submitted that the functional disability of the appellant-claimant is required to be calculated at 100% as he is unable to perform any activity. It is also submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LALAN D. AND ANOTHER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.1 and the decision of this Court in the case of MANJUNATH Vs. SUNIL AND ANOTHER2. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
3. Per contra, Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1/insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the evidence of PW-1 cannot be relied as he 1 2020 ACJ 2517 2 2023 ACJ 490 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR is not a treating doctor and he has assessed the disability in the year 2016 i.e. 3 years after the accident. It is submitted that the Tribunal, considering the evidence has awarded compensation under all other heads, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records.
5. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?"
6. The records indicate that the injured-claimant was walking on Bannerghatta Road near Government school, Weaver's Colony. At that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-R-2541 ridden by its rider in a rash -5- NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR and negligent manner dashed the injured-claimant causing grievous injuries. The injured-claimant was treated at the NIMHANS hospital and thereafter shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru. The injured-claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the permanent disability and the loss of the livelihood caused to him. The injured- claimant examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. The respondents neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing the arguments and analyzing the material on record, proceeded to award the compensation of Rs.12,97,600/- along with interest at 8% p.a under various heads.
7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs.8000/- per month. Though the claimant asserted that he was a stone dresser by vocation and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., but no cogent material was placed before the Tribunal to prove the same. Hence, the income assessed by the Tribunal is as per the notional income -6- NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR chart prepared by KSLSA, which is just and proper and does not call for any modification.
8. Insofar as the disability is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the same at 73.95% to the whole body and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,93,888/- towards the head of loss of future income due to disability. The records indicate that the claimant met with the accident on 26.03.2013 and he was provided treatment as an inpatient for 17 days in NIMHANS hospital, Bengaluru and Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru. The claimant examined PW1- Dr.Sharan Srinivasan, Consultant Neurologist, Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru. The said witness has deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant sustained severe head injury in the road traffic accident, was unconscious, was provided treatment at NIMHANS hospital and thereafter, was shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru. PW-1 has also narrated in his affidavit about the treatment provided to the claimant and assessed his disability at 73.95%, but the functional disability was assessed at 100%. PW-1 has -7- NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR clearly stated that he has followed the guidelines issued by NIMHANS to assess the disability. To arrive at such a conclusion, a detailed calculation has been provided at paragraph 4 of his affidavit and the said affidavit is as per the standard guidelines issued by DGHS, Government of India and NIMHANS. The said witness has been cross- examined at length. However, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the same. I have perused Ex-P7-disability certificate, Ex.P11-certified copy of the wound certificate and other medical records. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has grossly erred at assessing the disability at 73.95%. It is important to note that the claimant was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and being a stone dresser by vocation, would not be able to perform any duties and earn a livelihood due to his disability. On re-looking the entire evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the functional disability of -8- NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR the claimant is required to be re-assessed at 100% for the purpose of determination of compensation.
9. It would be useful to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJKUMAR Vs. AJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER3, wherein the relevant paragraphs read thus:
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.3
(2011) 1 SCC 343 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."
(emphasis supplied)
10. In another decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LAXMAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR COMPANY LIMITED4, at paragraph 15 of the judgment has held as under:
"15. The ration of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."
(emphasis supplied)
11. It is apt and necessary to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH Vs. MOHAN AND OTHERS5, wherein at paragraph 14, it is observed as under:
"14. In making the computation in the present case, the Court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engage in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of 4 (2011) 10 SCC 756 5 (2018) 4 SCC 571
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing- atleast in the facts of this case- can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity"
(emphasis supplied)
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARNAM SINGH Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS6 , has held as under:
"9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others. In the 6 (2023) Livelaw (SC) 498
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR aforesaid case the injured 3 (2018) 4 SCC 571 4 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5567 MFA No. 100381 of 2021 was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%."
(emphasis supplied)
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR
13. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, I am of the considered view that the functional disability of the claimant is required to be re-assessed at 100%. Having assessed the disability at 100%, the claimant would be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future prospects at the rate of 25% of the assessed income. The claimant is not entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of amenities in view of the award of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects at the rate of 25% of the assessed income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment charges, which is meagre as the claimant requires an attendant to attend to his activities and taking note of his travel requirements to hospitals, interest of justice would be met if we award a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same. The compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of income during the laid up period, which is not
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is on lesser side, which is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-.
14. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the compensation is re-assessed as under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain and suffering 1,50,000/-
Medical bills 2,13,650/-
Loss of income during laid up period 25,000/-
Loss of future income due to disability 16,80,000/-
(Rs.8000/- + 25% x 12 x 14 x 100%)
conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges 1,00,000/-
TOTAL 21,68,650/-
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,68,500/- as against Rs.12,97,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.
15. 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 08.09.2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified to an
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14182 M.F.A. No.278/2018 HC-KAR extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.21,68,500/- as against Rs.12,97,600/- 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.1 shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of 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) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.
g) Draw the modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1