Karnataka High Court
Vinod vs The Manager on 4 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
MFA No. 7650 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7650 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VINOD
S/O MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/O VALLABAI ROAD
HASSAN-573 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MANJUNATHA COMPLEX
OLD BUS STAND ROAD
HASSAN-573 201.
2. CHANDRASHETTY
S/O RANGASHETTY
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF R/O SINGODANAHALLI
KARNATAKA
ALURU TALUK
HSSAAN DISTRICT-573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2014, NOTICE TO R2
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.1.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1427/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-1, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
MFA No. 7650 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment and award dated 23rd January 2013, passed by
the Addl.District Judge and M.A.C.T., and Fast Track
Court-I, Hassan, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC
No.1427/2012, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, on12.07.2012, at
about 9.00 a.m., claimant was travelling as a pillion rider
on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02-EU-9944
and one Mayegowda was riding the motorcycle in rash
and negligent manner. Due to the same, at Heragu-
Doddapura road cross, the motorcycle was capsized; as a
result of which, claimant sustained injuries. He lost vision
of his right eye and suffered other facial injuries. He spent
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
substantial amount towards medical expenses.
For these reasons, the claimant prayed for enhancement
of the compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2- the insurer
denied the contents of the claim petition and it also denied
its liability to pay compensation. On these reasons, the
insurer prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal framed necessary issues.
6. The Claimant to prove his case, got himself
examined as PW-1 and examined two witnesses as PWs.2
and 3 and marked 11 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-11.
Respondents have not led any evidence.
7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and
appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident
had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the
motorcycle by its rider. It also held that claimant is
entitled for compensation from respondents No.1 and 2
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
and awarded compensation under different heads as
below:
Pain and suffering Rs.75,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period Rs.3,000/-
Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
Food and nourishment Rs.12,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.60,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity due to Rs.1,30,000/-
permanent disability
Total Rs.2,85,000/-
Being dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred present appeal for
enhancement of the same.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
submits that Tribunal has not considered the income of the
claimant properly. Although the claimant sustained three
fractures and loss of vision in the right eye, in addition to
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
other injuries, he was not adequately compensated by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has assessed the permanent
disability of the claimant at 15% despite examining the
doctor, who treated him. The amount of compensation
awarded under other heads was also on the lower side.
Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurer
submitted that Tribunal has properly appreciated the
evidence and awarded a just and reasonable amount of
compensation, which does not call for any interference by
this Court. In the alternative he submitted that, at the
most, this Court may consider the contention of the
appellant in respect of loss of vision in right eye and to
reconsider the extent of permanent disability suffered by
the claimant. With these reasons, it is prayed to pass
suitable orders.
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
11. Following points arises for consideration :
(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
(ii) What order?
Point No.1 :
12. The fact of accident and injuries sustained by the
claimant are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to
reconsider the same. Claimant had sustained following
injuries :
(1) Fracture of right zygomatic complex involving
front zygomatic, zygomatic buttress and
infraorbital region (multiple communited),
zygomatic maxillary suture region
(2) Fracture of mandible involving right coronoid
process,
(3) Laceration over the right supra orbital and
infra orbital region,
(4) Distorted right globe with loss of vision.
13. He had taken treatment at S.S.M. Hospital,
Hassan. It is also not in dispute that loss of vision in right
eye was due to the injuries sustained by him in the
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
accident. PW-3 - doctor in his evidence has stated that
claimant has lost his vision in the right eye due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident. PW-2 - doctor
corroborates the evidence of PW-1 in respect of
fractures and facial injuries suffered by the claimant. He
has stated that claimant has suffered permanent disability
to an extent of 25% due to the said injuries.
14. Claimant is an agriculturalist and milk vendor, as
per his contention. Fractures of facial bones may not lead
to functional disability. Due to the same, he might have
lost some of amenities, which shall be considered while
assessing compensation under the head `loss of
amenities'; but not to be considered under the head
`loss of future earning capacity due to disability'.
15. Considering the materials available on record,
the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
needs to be reconsidered.
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
16. It is the contention of the claimant that he was
earning Rs.8,000/- per month by working as a coolie.
However, there are no materials on record to support this
claim. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of
the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month, which appears to
be on the lower side. If we consider the chart prepared by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional
income of the victim of an accident of the year 2009; is
Rs.7,000/- per month. Same could be applied to the facts
of the present case.
17. Considering the evidence of PW-1, as well as
PW-3, the permanent disability suffered by the claimant
has to be considered as 30% to the whole body since he
has lost vision in the right eye. On that basis, loss of
future earning capacity due to permanent disability is to
be reconsidered.
18. Undisputedly, the multiplier applicable in this
case is `18' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
Court in the case of SarlaVerma -vs- Delhi Transport
Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.On
the basis of the same, loss of future earning capacity due
to permanent disability is to be determined.
19. Accordingly, following compensation is awarded:
Particulars Amount in
Rs.
Pain and suffering 1,00,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period 21,000/-
(Rs.7,000/- x 3)
Attendant charges and special diet 15,000/-
Medical expenses 60,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity due 4,53,600/-
to permanent disability
(Rs.7,000/- x 12x 18 x 30%)
Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 15,000/-
Total 6,64,600/-
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 2,85,000/-
_________
Enhancement - 3,79,600/-
Rounded off to - 3,80,000/-
20. Thus, the claimant is entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- alongwith
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date
of petition till its realization. Accordingly, point No.1 is
answered partly in the affirmative.
21. Undisputedly, the respondent No.2 being the
owner and respondent No.1 being the insurer are liable to
pay the said amount.
22. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
23rd January 2013, passed in
MVC.No.1427/2012, by the Addl.District Judge
and M.A.C.T., and Fast Track Court-I, Hassan,
stands modified.
iii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-, along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced
amount, from the date of petition till its
realization.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19059
HC-KAR
iv) The Respondent insurance company
shall deposit the amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of award.
v) The remaining portion of the award of
the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.
vi) No order as to costs.
vii) Draw award accordingly.
Registry is directed to send back the records along
with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
bk/
