Karnataka High Court
Mr Shridhara K vs Mr Sujith Shetty on 24 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22108
MFA No. 6972 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6972 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR SHRIDHARA K
S/O P SANJEEVA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAMANE
PERLAMPADY, PERLAMPADY HOUSE
PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR SUJITH SHETTY
S/O SANJEEVA SHETTY
ADULT
Digitally R/AT 3-771, KALLARE HOUSE
signed by SAMPYA POST, PUTTUR TALUK
NIRMALA D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.
DEVI
Location: 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
HIGH COURT 1134, DEVARU MANSION
OF DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
KARNATAKA CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
RAMBHAVANA COMPLEX
NAVABHARATH CIRCLE, KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 28.06.2022)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22108
MFA No. 6972 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21/04/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1130/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
& II ADDITIONAL MACT, MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 19881 challenging the
judgment and award dated 21.04.2018 passed in MVC
No.1130/2016 by the I Additional District Judge and MACT-II,
Mangaluru2 seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated
21.04.2018 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a
total compensation of `9,51,000/- together with interest @ 9%
per annum. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed the above
appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
Hereinafter referred as to 'Act'
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC:22108
HC-KAR
4. The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and on liability
is not under challenge and have attained finality. The only
question to be adjudicated in the above appeal is with regard to
the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the submissions of learned counsel
Sri Ravishankar Shastry, appearing for the appellant and
learned counsel Sri Mohan Kumar T., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the records of the
Tribunal.
6. It is forthcoming that the claimant was aged 24 years as
on the date of the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has applied
the appropriate multiplier of '18' which is just and proper.
7. It was averred that the claimant was a painter by
profession and was earning `25,000/- per month. However, no
records have been produced to prove his income. Hence, the
Tribunal has assessed the income of `8,000/- per month.
However, having regard to the date of the accident the notional
income of the claimant is re-assessed as `9,500/-.
NC: 2025:KHC:22108
HC-KAR
8. It is evident that from the wound certificate (Ex.P3),
discharge summaries (Exs.P8 to P10), medical certificate
(Ex.P12) and other medical records that the claimant has
sustained fracture of left radius and ulna as well as the open
fracture of left tibia and fibula along with other simple injuries.
The claimant was treated as an inpatient on three occasions for
a total period of 70 days. The evidence of Doctor (PW.2) and
disability certificate (Ex.P11) disclose that the Doctor has
assessed the disability of the claimant at 36% to the left lower
limb and 20% to the left upper limb. However, the Tribunal
has assessed the whole body disability at 16%. The Tribunal
had noticed that PW.2 was not a Orthopedic Doctor and that
the disability has been assessed prior to the removal of
implants. However, PW.2 has deposed that he was part of the
team who had treated the claimant. There is no effective cross
examination with regard to the extent of disability as assessed
by PW.2. In view of the aforementioned, considering the
disability assessed by PW.2 to upper and lower limb, it is just
and proper that the disability be re-assessed as 18% to the
whole body.
NC: 2025:KHC:22108
HC-KAR
9. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re-
assessed as follows:
9.1 The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain
and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of amenities as
well as conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges
by the Tribunal are just and proper.
9.2 Tribunal has awarded compensation of `3,83,503/-
towards medical expenses which is as per the actual bills which
is just and proper and rounded off to `3,85,000/-
9.3 The Tribunal has assessed the period of treatment as 9
months. Hence, the loss of income during laid up period is re-
assessed as (`9,500 x 9) `85,500/- as against `72,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
9.4 The Loss of future earning capacity is re-assessed as
(`9,500 x 12 x 18 x 18%) `3,69,360/- as against `2,76,480/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded interest at 9%
per annum. However, taking judicial notice of the interest
payable towards fixed deposits, it is just and proper to award
NC: 2025:KHC:22108
HC-KAR
interest at the rate of 7% p.a., on the compensation as re-
assessed by this Court.
11. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re-
assessed as follows:
Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Amount awarded
Awarded by the by this Court (`)
Tribunal (`)
1 Medical expenses 3,83,503.00 3,85,000.00
2 Conveyance, nutritious 74,000.00 74,000.00
food and attendant
charges
3 Loss of amenities and 50,000.00 50,000.00
enjoyment of life,
discomfort
4 Pain and sufferings 70,000.00 70,000.00
5 Loss of income during 72,000.00 85,500.00
laid up period
6 Loss of future earnings 2,76,480.00 3,69,360.00
7 Future medical expenses 25,000.00 25,000.00
Total 9,50,983.90 10,58,860.00
12. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of (`10,58,860/- - `9,50,983/-) = `1,07,877/-.
13. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) judgment and award dated 21.04.2018 passed
in MVC No.1130/2016 by the I Additional
District Judge and MACT-II, Mangaluru is
NC: 2025:KHC:22108
HC-KAR
hereby modified to the extent ordered herein.
In all other respects, the judgment and award
of the Tribunal remains unaltered;
iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of ``1,07,877/- together with
interest at 7% per annum from the date of
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 be disbursed to the claimant;
vi) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly;
vii) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
No costs.
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
