Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sri Ravikumar A E vs Nataraja Urs T N
2024 Latest Caselaw 19871 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19871 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 August, 2024

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ravikumar A E vs Nataraja Urs T N on 7 August, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC:31605
                                                            MFA No. 819 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 819 OF 2023 (MV-I)

                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. RAVIKUMAR A. E.,
                   S/O ESHWARAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                   R/O AMBLE VILLAGE AND POST,
                   CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND
                   DISTRICT- 577 101.
Digitally signed                                                     ...APPELLANT
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN            (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           AND:
KARNATAKA
                   1.    NATARAJA URS T. N.,
                         S/O. NAGARAJA URS,
                         AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                         R/AT THEGUR VILLAGE AND POST,
                         CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577101.
                   2.    SMT KAMALA T. L.,
                         W/O. NATARAJA URS T. N.,
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                         R/O THEGUR VILLAGE AND POST,
                         CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577101.

                   3.    THE BRANCH MANAGER
                         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                         K.T. STREET, PANDURANGA COMPLEX,
                         CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY - 577 101.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3
                   V/O. DATED 03.02.2023,
                   NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
                                    -2-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:31605
                                                 MFA No. 819 of 2023




     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.07.2022        PASSED IN
MVC NO. 64/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MEMBER, MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for

respondent No.3.

2. The claimant who suffered injuries in a road traffic

accident filed an application seeking compensation of

Rs.25,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Chikkamagaluru, dealt the case as MVC No.64/2021 and finally

passed orders on 02.07.2022 awarding a sum of Rs.3,39,658/-

as compensation. Dissatisfied with the said sum that is awarded

as compensation, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.

3. Learned counsel Sri.A.Ravishankar who is

representing respondent No.3 submits that the Tribunal taking

into consideration all the aspects of the case has awarded just

NC: 2024:KHC:31605

sum of compensation. However, by increasing the notional

income to Rs.12,500/-, enhancement may be made to that

extent.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained

fracture of shaft of right leg. Submitting that the Tribunal erred

in assessing the notional income of the appellant and also

awarding just compensation under all heads, learned counsel

for the appellant contends that, the appellant by doing coolie

work was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month by the

date of accident. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal took

the notional income of the appellant as Rs.9,000/- per month

which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also submits that the

accident occurred in the year 2018 and for the relevant period

even the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the

notional income as Rs.12,500/- per month. Learned counsel

submits that at-least the said figure might have been taken into

consideration by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation.

Admittedly, no substantive proof is produced with regard to the

actual occupation and income of the appellant by the date of

accident. However, there is no denial of the fact that the

NC: 2024:KHC:31605

appellant was aged about 43 years by the date of accident.

Having considered the said age, as rightly submitted by

Sri.Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the appellant, the

Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the

appellant as Rs.12,500/- per month. Further, a perusal of the

impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has not added future

prospects. The multiplier applied i.e., '14' is proper. Also the

Tribunal assessed the disability as 17.57% basing on the

evidence of PW3 which requires no interference. Therefore,

applying the aforementioned parameters, the compensation

which the appellant is entitled to towards loss of earnings due

to permanent physical disability will be as under:

         Description                     Amount
                                           Rs.
    Notional income per month
                                           12,500-00
    Annual income (12,500 x
    12)                                  1,50,000-00

    Add 25% towards future
    prospects(1,50,000+25%)              1,87,500-00

    Applying     the    appropriate    26,25,000-00
    multiplier '14'(1,87,500x14)

    Permanent physical disability         4,61,212.5
    being               17.57%         Rounded off to
    (26,25,000x17.57%)                  4,61,213-00

                                           NC: 2024:KHC:31605





5. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries

sustained by the appellant and the treatment taken, this Court

is of the view that the appellant would not have attended his

normal pursuits at-least for a period of two months. Therefore,

loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.25,000/-

(12,500x2). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under

the head pain and sufferings, however, the just amount would

be Rs.25,000/-. So far as the award of compensation under all

other heads by the Tribunal is concerned, the same needs no

interference. Thus, the amount which the appellant is entitled

to as compensation under different heads will be as under:

    Sl.         Description                Amount
    No                                       Rs.
     1     Loss of future earnings due
           to    permanent     physical
                                           4,61,213-00
           disability

      2    Nourishment, food and diet
                                             15,000-00
           charges
      3    Loss of earnings during laid
           up period                         25,000-00

      4    Pain and suffering
                                             25,000-00
      5    Loss of amenities in life
                                             15,000-00
      6    Attendant charges
                                               5,000-00
          Total Compensation              5,46,213-00

                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:31605





      6.     In   the    light   of    the   foregoing   discussion,    the

following


                                       ORDER


      i)     The appeal is allowed in part.

      ii)    The compensation that is granted by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagaluru, through orders in

MVC No.64/2021 dated 02.07.2022 is enhanced from

Rs.3,39,658/-to Rs.5,46,213/-.

iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of

6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

iv) The third respondent is directed to deposit the

enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

withdraw the entire amount.

Sd/-

(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

AP CT:TSM

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter