Karnataka High Court
Sri Thirumalagiri T vs Sri Shivakumar on 22 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
MFA No. 5385 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 4790 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5385 OF 2022 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4790 OF 2022 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 5385/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. THIRUMALAGIRI T,
S/O THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 518/0, 8TH CROSS
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 040.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KUMAR DYAVAPATNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
Digitally signed by S/O PARVATHAMMA
AASEEFA PARVEEN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT NO. 34, 12TH MAIN ROAD
COURT OF
KARNATAKA RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 050.
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO 89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
MADIWALA, 1ST STAGE,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 068,
REPRESENTED BY LEGAL OFFICER/MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
MFA No. 5385 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 4790 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.
1371/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND
ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH.13),PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 4790/2022
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO 89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA,
1ST STAGE, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGER,
M/S. ICICI LOMBARD
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
THE ESTATE, 9TH FLOOR,
DICKENSON ROAD, M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 42
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. THIRUMALAGIRI. T
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT 518/0, 8TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O PARVATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
MFA No. 5385 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 4790 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/ATNO 34, 12TH MAIN ROAD
RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK,
SRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KUMAR DYAVAPATNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1371/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE
AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-13), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS. 6,20,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT WITH THE
TRIBUNAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
MFA No.5385/2022 is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation. MFA No.4790/2022 is filed by
the Insurance Company projecting that the compensation
granted by the tribunal is high and excessive. Both the appeals
arise out of the award that is passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.1371/2019 dated 14.01.2022.
2. Heard Sri. Kumar Dyavapatna learned counsel for the
appellant in MFA No.5385/2022 who also represented
respondent No.1 in MFA No.4790/2022. Also heard
Sri. B.C.Shivanne Gowda learned counsel for the appellant in
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
MFA No.4790/2022. Sri. Arun K.S learned counsel for
respondent No.1 in MFA No.5385/2022 also made his
submission.
3. For the purpose of convenience of discussion the
appellant in MFA No.5385/2022 who is also respondent No.1 in
MFA No.4790/2022 will hereinafter be referred to as the
claimant. Likewise, the appellant in MFA No.4790/2022 will
hereinafter be referred as the Insurance Company.
4. The facts of the case as projected by the claimant
before the tribunal is that on 31.12.2018 while he was
proceedings on his motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-42-J-6494 near Briyand Circle Signal, the driver of an
Etios Car bearing registration No.KA-05-AF-1861 drove the said
vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and
hit against his motorcycle, due to which he sustained grievous
injuries.
5. The claimant filed a petition invoking Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-
in total. The tribunal subjecting the evidence of PWs-1 and 2,
Exs. P-3, P-5 to P-17 to scrutiny came to a conclusion that the
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,20,400/- and accordingly
awarded the said amount as compensation.
6. Projecting his version, learned counsel for the claimant
contended that the tribunal did not award justifiable sum as
compensation under any head. The compensation granted
under the heads conveyance, attendant charges, food and
nourishment, loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up
period and towards loss of future earnings is grossly low.
Learned counsel submitted that the claimant underwent two
surgeries and he got admitted at Hospital on two different
occasions. Though the claimant spent more than Rs.3,00,000/-
towards medical expenses, the tribunal awarded a meager sum
of Rs.60,400/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel
further contended that the claimant was supplying flowers to
different shops and he was earning not less than Rs.75,000/-
per month. The claimant produced even income tax returns in
proof of his income. However, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.12,000/- only under the head loss of earnings during
treatment period and Rs.4,89,000/- only under the head loss of
future earnings. Learned counsel by submitting thus sought to
grant the sum that is claimed by the claimant as compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
7. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made,
learned counsel who represented the Insurance Company
stated that the amount that is granted as compensation is
highly excessive. Learned counsel submitted that there was no
reduction in earnings even after the accident and indeed the
income got enhanced. Learned counsel further submitted that
the claimant did not produce any proof to show that there was
loss of earnings or reduction in the earnings and therefore the
tribunal ought not to have awarded any amount under the head
loss of future earnings. Learned counsel further submitted that
the compensation granted by the tribunal is liable to be scaled
down and therefore the Insurance Company filed an appeal.
Learned counsel thereby sought to reduce the sum that is
awarded as compensation by the tribunal by allowing the
appeal that is filed by the Insurance Company.
8. The submission that was made by learned counsel for
respondent No.1 in MFA No.5385/2022 is that the tribunal
granted justifiable sum as compensation and therefore there is
neither necessity to enhance the said sum nor to reduce and
therefore no modification of the impugned award is required.
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
9. The claimant produced the copy of the wound
certificate, Medial Bills, Prescriptions, Discharge Summary, Bill
books, the Outpatient Record, the Inpatient Record, the
Disability Assessment Report, relevant X-ray films, copy of his
Pan Card and Income Tax Returns for the relevant period to
establish his version. The claimant also got examined the
surgeon who treated him as PW-2. As per the evidence of PW-2
the claimant sustained fracture of both bone left leg due to the
road traffic accident. The claimant took treatment as inpatient
and he was operated for the injuries sustained with closed
interlocking nailing. The evidence of PW-2 is also that the
claimant again got admitted at the hospital with history of pain
over the proximal end of the nail and on examination he was
found with bony out growth for which he was advised a surgery
and he was again operated. PW-2 stated that as per his
assessment there is 20% of permanent physical disability of left
lower limb and 10% to the whole body.
10. Considering the income tax returns that were filed by
the claimant for the relevant period, the tribunal took the
annual income of the claimant as Rs.3,49,277/-. The tribunal
gave concrete findings with regard to the entitlement of the
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
claimant for compensation. Having discussed at length the
merits of the case, the tribunal ultimately awarded a sum of
Rs.30,000/- under the head pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/-
under the head loss of amenities, Rs.60,400/- towards medial
expenses, Rs.9,000/- towards food, nourishment and Attendant
charges, Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings during laid up
period and Rs.4,89,000/-towards loss of future earnings. The
tribunal thereby awarded a total sum of Rs.6,20,400/- as
compensation.
11. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the
claimant, the compensation granted under the head loss of
earnings during laid up period i.e., Rs.12,000/- is grossly low.
12. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained
and the fact that the claimant underwent operation twice, this
Court is of the view that the claimant would have taken bed
rest at least for a period of four months. The tribunal rightly
took the earnings of the claimant as Rs.12,000/- per month.
Therefore, loss of earnings for a period of four months comes
to Rs.48,000/. As earlier stated, the tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.12,000/- only under the head loss of earnings during
treatment period. Thus, the enhancement will be Rs.36,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
(48,000 - 12,000) under the head loss of earnings during laid
up period.
13. This Court is also of the view that the compensation
granted under the head pain and sufferings i.e., Rs.30,000/- is
on lower side. The claimant is therefore entitled to an additional
sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head pain and suffering. This the
total amount which the claimant is entitled to receive in
addition to the sum that is awarded as compensation by the
tribunal is Rs.46,000/- (36,000 + 10,000).
14. Though learned counsel for the claimant contended
that the sum awarded as compensation under the head medical
expenses is grossly low, having considered the discussion that
went on with regard to the medical expenses at para 21 of the
impugned order and as the observations made and the findings
given are on proper lines, this Court is of the view that the sum
awarded as compensation under the head medical expenses by
the tribunal needs no interference. Likewise, though learned
counsel for the Insurance Company stated that the
compensation granted by the tribunal is excessive and that the
claimant did not sustain any loss of earnings, however, as there
is no material more so convincing material on record to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
show that there is such increase in his earnings and having
considered the fact that PW-2 clearly stated that the disability
in respect of whole body which is permanent in nature is 10%,
this Court is of the view that there are no grounds for any
reduction of the amount. Therefore, both the appeals are
disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
i. MFA No.4790/2022 is dismissed without costs.
ii. MFA No.5385/2022 is allowed in part.
iii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through
orders in M.V.C. No.1371/2019 dated 14.01.2022
is enhanced by Rs.46,000/-.
iv. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit.
v. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27524
HC-KAR
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
vi. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
vii. Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned tribunal immediately.
In the light of the disposal of both the appeals the
proceedings in I.A No.3/2022 in MFA No.4790/2022 stands
closed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
