Karnataka High Court
Sri D R Venkatesh vs Sri Shaiju S on 4 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
MFA No. 6429 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6429 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI D R VENKATESH
S/O LATE RAMASWAMI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1085/1,
19TH A MAIN ROAD,
1ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU NORTH,
KALYANAGAR,BANGALORE-43
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SHAIJU S
S/O SHAJAHAN
MAJOR,
Digitally R/AT SHAIJU MANZIL,
signed by
BHARATHI S AMMAN NAGAR, 231,
Location: PATTATHANNAM P.O,
HIGH COURT KOLLAM-691021
OF KERALA STATE.
KARNATAKA
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
KRISHIBHAVANA
NO.18, 5TH FLOOR,
BRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560001
3. MOHAN KUMAR L
S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMMAN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
MFA No. 6429 of 2019
HC-KAR
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.8, HOUSE NO.6,
2ND FLOOR, 29TH B CROSS,
KAGGADASAPURA,
C V RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-93
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
R.O NO.144 & 145,
SUBARAM COMPLEX,
M G ROAD, BENGALURU-25
5. K N THANDAPANI
S/O K NALLAPPA GOWNDER,
MAJOR,
NO.65, A.P.P NAGAR,
PALANIGOUNDER,
PUDUR,. ODDANCHATRAM TALUK,
DINDIGAL DISTRICT-624619
6. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS,
2ND FLOOR, NO.9, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1, R3-R6 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 24.03.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.
4580/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY SCCH-4,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
MFA No. 6429 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal is field by the claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the
judgment and award dated 03.09.2018 passed in
MVC.Nos.4580/2015 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-4)2 seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he was traveling
in a Toyata Innova car on 08.08.2015 from Krishnagiri to
Salem when a Jeep came from the opposite direction and hit
the vehicle in which the petitioner was traveling. The vehicle of
the petitioner was also hit by another vehicle from the hind
side, causing the accident in question. Claiming compensation
for the injuries sustained in the accident the claimant instituted
the claim proceeding. The Tribunal by its judgment and award
Hereinafter referred as to 'Act'
Hereinafter referred as to 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
dated 03.09.2018 partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded a compensation of `2,54,000/- together with interest
at 6% per annum and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded.
Respondent No.2 - insurer was directed to deposit the
compensation awarded. Being aggrieved the present appeal is
filed seeking for enhancement of compensation.
4. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and
liability are not under challenge and have attained finality.
Hence, the only aspect adjudicated upon in the present appeal
is with regard to the enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard submissions of learned counsel Sri. Shripad V
Shastri, appearing for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. BC
Shivanne Gowda, appearing for respondent No.2 - insurer.
6. It is a contention of learned counsel for the
appellant that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and that the compensation awarded on certain other
heads is on the lower side. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 -
insurer justifies the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and
contends that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the
higher side and in view of the same, the total compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.
8. The submissions of both the learned counsels have
been considered and the material on record including the
records of the Tribunal have been perused.
9. The claimant was aged 54 years who sustained
fracture of left distal radius and right acetabulum both to the
posterior and anterior wall as is forthcoming from wound
certificate (Ex.P.5). It is also forthcoming from discharge
summary (Ex.P.6) that the claimant was treated as inpatient
from 08.08.2015 to 22.08.2015 that is for a period of 15 days.
The doctor has been examined as PW.8 who has assessed the
disability of the claimant in respect of mobility, stability and
coordination activities. The whole body disability assessed by
the doctor (PW.8) is 27%. It is further forthcoming from the
discharge summary (Ex.P.6) that the claimant has undergone
two surgeries that is on 12.08.2015 and 17.08.2015 which was
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
an open reduction and internal fixation. The Doctor PW.8 has
also deposed regarding the treatment that has been taken by
the claimant which is also detailed in the discharge summary
(Ex.P.6).
10. The claimant has averred that he was carrying on
real-estate business. However, no documents have been
produced to prove the income. The Tribunal has assessed the
income of the claimant at `10,000/-p.m, by considering the
income of the claimant as notional income. Having regard to
the fact that no documents have been produced by the
claimant to prove the income and keeping the date of accident
it is just and proper that the income of the claimant is re-
assessed at `9,000/- p.m.
11. The Tribunal, while assessing the disability, upon
noticing that the evidence of the doctor has recorded a finding
that the disability assessed by PW.8 is on the higher side and
re-assessed the disability at 9%. It is pertinent to note here
that the disability assessed by the doctor at 27% was with
regard to the whole body. PW.8 having in detail noticed the
disability cause to the claimant by virtue of the injuries and
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
there being no effective cross-examination of PW.8, it is just
and proper that the disability to the claimant be re-assessed at
25% to the whole body.
12. Having regard to the aforementioned, the
compensation is re-assessed as follows:
i. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained
and the period of treatment, the compensation awarded
towards pain and suffering is re-assessed as `50,000/-, as
against `40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
ii. The Tribunal has awarded sum of `20,100/-
towards medical expenses which is as per actuals and is just
and proper.
iii. The Tribunal has awarded loss of income for laid up
period by taking laid up period as two months. However,
having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the
period of treatment, it is just and proper that the laid up
period be re-assessed as three months and accordingly
compensation of `(9,000 X 3 )=`27,000/- is awarded towards
the same.
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
iv. Having regard to the period during which the
claimant is treated as inpatient it is just and proper to award
sum of `20,000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant
charges injuries as against `15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
v. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained
and the resultant disability, the loss of amenities is re-
assessed at `30,000/- as against `20,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
vi. The disability having been re-assessed at `25%, the
compensation towards the same is re-assessed at (9,000 X 12
X 11 X 25%) =`2,97,000/- as against `1,18,800/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
vii. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
`20,000/- towards future medical expenses. It is noticed that
PW.8 has deposed that claimant will have to under go another
surgery. However, the details of the same have not been
stated. Hence, there is no basis to award any compensation
towards further medical expenses and the same is set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
13. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation
re-assessed is as follows:
Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Amount awarded
Awarded by the by this Court (`)
Tribunal (`)
1 Pain and suffering 40000.00 50000.00
2 Towards medical 20100.00 20100.00
expenses
3 Towards loss of income 20000.00 27000.00
during laid up period
4 Disability 118800.00 297000.00
5 Towards food, 15000.00 20000.00
nourishment and
attendant charges
6 Loss of amenities 20000.00 30000.00
7 Towards future medical 20000.00 00.00
expenses
Total 253900.00 444100.00
14. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of (`4,44,100/- - `2,53,900/-) `1,90,200/-.
15. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 03.09.2018 passed
in MVC.Nos.4580/2015 by the Motor Vehicle
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-4), is
hereby modified to the extent stated herein. In all
other respects, the judgment and award of the
Tribunal remains unaltered;
iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to an enhanced
compensation of `1,90,200/- together with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till
its realization in addition to the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal;
iv) Respondent No.2 - insurer is directed to deposit the
said compensation together with accrued interest
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment;
v) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced
compensation together with interest accrued
thereupon is to be disbursed to the claimant;
vi) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly;
vii) Records of the Tribunal be transmitted to the
Tribunal forthwith.
No costs.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18878
HC-KAR
In view of the disposal of the above appeal, pending
interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and
stands disposed of.
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PNV
