Karnataka High Court
Sri Govinda Raje Urs vs Sri M B Raghu on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
MFA No. 6770 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6770 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI GOVINDA RAJE URS
S/O DASAPPA RAJE URS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
HONGANURU VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M B RAGHU
S/O M.H BYRAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT NO.37,
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N NEAR PETROL BUNK,
Location: HIGH CHANDAPURA ROAD,
COURT OF ANEKAL- 562 100
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
S.M. TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560011
REP: BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 26.07.2017, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
MFA No. 6770 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED11.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.337/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
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 against judgment and
award dated 11.03.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)
in M.V.C.No.337/2012.
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 on 09.05.2011, around
05.30 a.m., the claimant was boarding a bus bearing
registration No.KA-55-360 at Honganuru Bus stand. At that
time, the driver of the bus negligently drove the bus, as a
result of which the claimant fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. He initially took treatment at Government Hospital,
Channapatna. Thereafter, he was shifted to NIMHANS,
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
HC-KAR
Bengaluru and Maharaja Agrasena Hospital, Bengaluru where
he remained as an inpatient for about 25 days. He had spent
more than Rs.75,000/- towards medical and incidental
expenses. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about
36 years, working as a Supervisor in a transport company and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the
accident he has suffered permanent disability, which has
affected his earning capacity. For these reasons, he is seeking
a compensation of Rs.4,00,000.
4. Respondent-insurer denied the contentions of the
claimant and denied its liability to pay the compensation. On
these reasons, sought for dismissal of claim petition.
5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal
had framed the necessary issues for its determination.
6. The Claimant to prove his case, examined two
witnesses PW.1 and PW.2 and marked 15 documents, as per
Ex.P1 to P15.
7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, held that the
accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
HC-KAR
the bus by its driver and awarded following amount of
compensation:
Sl.No Heads Amount
1. Medical Treatment Rs.19,696/-.
2. Attendant Charges Rs.1,700/-.
3. Pain and Sufferings Rs.20,000/-
4. Loss of amenities in future life Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.61,396/-
Rounded to Rs.61,400/-
8. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant is before this
Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
9. Heard arguments of learned counsels appearing for the
both the side.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of
PW.2 and did not award compensation towards loss of future
earning capacity due to claimants permanent disability. It is
further contended that the amount awarded under other heads
are also on the lower side. Therefore, the claimant seeks for
enhancement of the compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
HC-KAR
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the
impugned judgment and submits that the evidence of PW.2 is
not reliable. The incident occurred in the year 2011 and the
claimant was examined in the year 2014. Despite the line gap,
he withstood the cross examination and he remembered the
manner in which the accident occurred and also answered all
the questions asked in the cross examination. This itself
reveals that the injury had not affected his earning capacity.
The Tribunal considered this fact and rightly did not award
compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity
due to permanent disability. Therefore, sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
12. The fact of accident and injuries sustained by the
claimant are not seriously disputed. Therefore, there is no
need to reconsider the same.
13. That claimant has produced the wound certificate at
Ex.P6, to show that he sustained following injuries:
(1). Abrasions seen in forehead, frontal area
with deep abraded 12X7 cms.
(2). Bleeding from both the nostrils.
(3). Bleeding from mouth.
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
HC-KAR
14. He has also produced the discharge summary as per
Ex.P8. In addition, he has also produced other medical
records; However, they do not appear to be relevant.
15. In the case file, there is a CT scan of the brain which
was not marked before the Tribunal. It indicates that the
petitioner had sustained few fractures of facial bones.
However, these facts were not brought to the notice of the
Tribunal by the claimant. Of course, it is an unmarked
document. However, for awarding just and reasonable
compensation, it needs to be considered.
16. In the evidence of PW2, he has narrated the
complaints of the claimant at paragraph No.2. The said facts
indicate that the claimant has lost some of the abilities, but
certainly, they are not functional disabilities. Moreover, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2,
PW1 appeared before the Court three years, after the accident
and withstood the cross examination. He was able to recall the
event which had occurred about 3 years earlier. Even in the
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
HC-KAR
case file, the record produced regarding the Neuro behavioural
and cognitive assessment, it indicates that the claimant was
normal except for a few tests. The cognitive disability assessed
by the concerned doctor, Dr.Pratibha Sharan, shows that he
has suffered permanent disability of 25% and in the
subsequent pages, it is considered as 39.44% including other
disabilities. In the evidence, PW1 has not disclosed how far it
has affected his earning capacity. Considering these tests, the
Tribunal rightly rejected the contentions of the claimant that it
affected his earning capacity. Mere physical disability is not
sufficient and it should be a functional disability that affecting
earning capacity of the claimant.
17. Considering the materials available on record, the
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
lower side, which requires enhancement. Accordingly, following
amount of compensation is awarded:
Sl.No Heads Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.19,696/-.
2. Special diet, Attendant and Rs.30,000/-.
Conveyance Charges
3. Pain and Sufferings Rs.50,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
HC-KAR
4. Loss of amenities and future Rs.1,00,000/-
unhappiness
Total Rs.1,99,696/-
(-) Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.61,400/-
Enhanced Award Rs.1,38,296/-
Rounded to Rs.1,39,000/-
18. Claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced
amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till its realization. Undisputedly, respondents are liable to pay
compensation.
19. For the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl., MACT,
Channapatna, in MVC.No.337/2011 dated
11.03.2015 is modified;
NC: 2025:KHC:21929
HC-KAR
iii. The claimant is entitled to enhancement of
Rs.1,39,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till its realization.
iv. Respondent No.2-Insurance company shall
deposit the said amount within a period of six
weeks from the date of award.
v. Enhanced amount is marginal. Hence, entire
enhanced amount is ordered to be released in
favour of claimant on due identification.
vi. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to the
Tribunal.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
RL
