Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivaprasad R vs Smt Girija M B on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
MFA No. 3727 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3727 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVAPRASAD R
S/O RANAGASWAMY,
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
NO.1049/B, SHATAVAHANA ROAD,
WEAVERS COLONY, BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560 019.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LATUR SURESH MAHALINGAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT GIRIJA M B
W/O BASAVANNA,
NO.107, VIJAYANAGAR,
5TH C MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGARA,
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560 104.
by
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR DESAI 2. THE MANAGER,
Location: High M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
Court of INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
Karnataka
#30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE,
RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
OFF RICHMOND ROAD,
OPP. TO KANTEERAVA STADIUM
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DTD: 17.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 ISD/W)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
MFA No. 3727 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3056/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE, ACMM AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-9), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
20.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 01.02.2024 passed in MVC No.3056/2021 on the file of the Small Causes Judge, ACMM and MACT, Bangalore, for enhancing the compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. Injured claimant met with accident on 22.03.2021 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on the record, granted an amount of Rs.4,09,971/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of petition till realization.
4. Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that injured aged 32 years working in Packing Section of Postal Department and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He examined the Doctor and the Doctor assessed the permanent disability of left lower limb as 27.29% and that of the whole body as 13.64%. The Tribunal granted interest rate of 6% which is on lower side and the earnings was also taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, he requested for enhancement of compensation as mentioned in the table and for granting of interest at the rate of 9%.
5. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon citation reported in arising out of 2025 ASV 1286 (SC) AIR -4- NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR Online 2025 SC 559 in case of Suresh Jatav V Sukhendra Singh and Ors, in which it was held that the claimant injured was a skilled mason, suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident and later deposed that he was unable to sit down, walked and could not lift heavy weights and he could not have continued his chosen vocation, and he assessed the functional disability as 35% and income as Rs.6,000/- per month. The compensation awarded for permanent disability, loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering was enhanced. For the same proposition, he also relied upon citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 ACJ 2142 between Aabid Khan Vs Dinesh and others in which it was said as follows.
" In the light of the aforestated position of law explained when the medical evidence tendered by the claimant is perused, we are of the considered view that tribunal and the High Court committed a serious error in not accepting the said medical evidence and in the absence of any contra evidence available on record, neither the tribunal nor the High Court could have substituted the disability to 10 per cent as against the opinion of the doctor (PW 5) -5- NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR certified at 17 per cent. In that view of the matter the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of income' towards permanent disability deserves to be enhanced by construing the whole body disability at 17 per cent."
6. Learned counsel for appellant also relied upon another citation reported in 2012 ACJ 1459 in case of Manoj Rathaur Vs Anil Raheja and others in which the treated Doctor stated that the petitioner suffered 20 to 25% permanent disability. But the Tribunal observed that there is no evidence in rebuttal, that assessment made by the doctor is not correct and injured could do his work with same degree of efficiency. However, the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court that he has not suffered any permanent disability and his working capacity has not been impaired, is not approved and the compensation is enhanced. He also relied upon Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.8074/2025 in which PW2 medical expert stated that appellant suffered 64.14% disability in relation to the right upper lower limb and 32% permanent disability to the whole body. There is no reason to discard -6- NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR the testimony of the medical expert. Accordingly, the disability was taken as 32% to the whole body.
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 relied upon a citation in Civil appeal No(s). 1337-1338/2019 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.2738-2739/2019 in which it was held as follows;
"this court will have to undertake the exercise of assessing the whole body disability and as per almanco manual,_ the whole body disability when compared to the particular limb disability would be 1/4th in respect of that of the lower limb. In the instant case, the lower limb disability assessed by Dr. Lalit PW-3 is 48% and 1/4th of the same would be 12%"
There is no dispute regarding the accident and rash and negligent driving of the car. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the policy issued in favour of respondent No.1 for car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MN- 9110 the insurance coverage is from 16.10.2020 to 15.10.2021 covering own damages only i.e., stand alone policy and it does not cover the risk of third parties. Thus, -7- NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR requested the court to dismiss the case against them as they are not insurer of the car in question.
8. The petitioner met with an accident in the year 2021. Though he stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month he has not filed any income proof. Therefore, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per Ex.P11 the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.06.1988 and the date of accident is 22.3.2021 and therefore at the time of accident he was aged 33 years. Hence, multiplier taken is '16'. It is observed that as per Ex.P6/wound certificate petitioner sustained following injuries;
(1) Fracture of proximal 1/3rd of Tibia, (2) Tenderness present over left knee joint, (3) Fracture of left tibia condyle on close flexion (4) Fracture of left hand fingers of 3 and 4 and others, -8- NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. Further, it is stated that immediately after the accident, first aid was given in KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru. Operation of MIPPO (Minimally Invasive Percutaneous plate Osteosynthersis) with plate and screws to left tibia was done. He examined the PW2 Orthopedic Surgeon and he assessed the disability to the lower limb as 27.29% and whole body as 13.64%. In the cross-examination he admitted that petitioner is using his left leg and fracture is united and he can do his work with some difficulty. But the Tribunal assessed the functional disability as 8%.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon several citations to show that the actual disability assessed by the doctor is to be considered for the purpose of enhancement. Admittedly, there is no mal-union of the fracture and fracture is united. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to consider 1/3rd of 27.9% i.e., 9% instead of 8%. Hence, the loss of future earning capacity comes to 15,000 X 12 X 16 X 9% = Rs.2,59,000/-. He is entitled for -9- NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR Rs.2,59,200/- under the head loss of future earning capacity. Tribunal granted Rs.66,141/- towards medical expenses, as per Ex.P14. So also tribunal granted Rs.4,430/- towards vehicle damage as per Ex.P13 and they are confirmed. He was an inpatient for 11 days, as per Ex.P10 discharge summary, considering the nature of injuries, period Of hospitalization, his age and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- per transportation extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, Rs.45,000/- is to be granted under the head loss of income during laid up period and the tribunal granted Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses and it is confirmed.
11. Thus in all, components awarded by this court are as below,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
MFA No. 3727 of 2024
HC-KAR
Particulars Amount
Sl.Nos.
in Rs.
1 Loss of future earning 2,59,200
capacity
2 Medical expenses 66,141
3 Loss of vehicle damage 4,430
4 Pain and suffering 60,000
5 Loss of amenities 30,000
6 Transportation, extra 30,000
nourishment and attendant
charges.
7 Loss of income during laid 45,000
down period
8 Future medical expenses 20,000
Total 5,14,771
Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,09,971/- to Rs.5,14,771/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
12. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
MFA No. 3727 of 2024
HC-KAR
ii. The judgment and award dated
01.02.2024 passed in MVC No.3056/2021 on the file of the Small Causes Judge, ACMM and MACT, Bangalore, is modified.
iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,14,771/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.4,09,971/- granted by the tribunal.
iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,04,800/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14812 MFA No. 3727 of 2024 HC-KAR v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2