Karnataka High Court
Sri. M.S. Chandru vs Sri Venkataswamy on 30 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
MFA No. 7151 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7451 of 2015
MFA No. 7452 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7151 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7451 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7452 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 7151/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. S. CHANDRU
S/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT,
MALUR PATNA VILLAGE,
KUDLUR POST,
CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE (VC) )
Digitally signed
by NANDINI R AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
KARNATAKA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR IN AGE,
ALADAMARADADODDI VILLAGE,
URAGAPURA POST,
BIDADI VILLAGE,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK,
K. S. C. M. E BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
MFA No. 7151 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7451 of 2015
MFA No. 7452 of 2015
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 052.
REP: BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
VIDE ORDER DATED:02.04.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.08.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.319/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 7451/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. K. SHARATH
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALUR PATNA VILLAGE,
KUDLUR POST, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR IN AGE,
ALADAMARADADODDI VILLAGE,
URAGAPURA POST, BIDADI VILLAGE,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK,
K. S. C. M. E BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
REP: BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR NEGAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED:24.04.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
MFA No. 7151 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7451 of 2015
MFA No. 7452 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.08.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.318/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 7452/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. UMESH
S/O MARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALUR PATNA VILLAGE,
KUDLUR POST, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
MAJOR IN AGE,
ALADAMARADADODDI VILLAGE,
URAGAPURA POST, BIDADI VILLAGE,
RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK,
K.S.C.M.E BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 052.
REP: BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED:24.04.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.8.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.321/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
MFA No. 7151 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 7451 of 2015
MFA No. 7452 of 2015
HC-KAR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and learned counsels appearing for the respondent
No.2-Insurance Company in all these appeals.
2. The appellants, who are the petitioners in MVC
Nos.318/12, 319/12 and 321/12 are before this Court in
appeals being aggrieved by the common judgment and award
dated 14.08.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge &
MACT, Channapattana.
3. The factual matrix of the case, as may be found
from the records is that on 29.05.2011 at about 7.30 p.m.,
when the petitioners in MVC Nos.318/12 and 321/12, namely
M.K.Sharath and M.Umesh were proceeding on a motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA-42-1316 and when the petitioner in
MVC 319/12, namely M.S.Chandru was following them on
another motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-42-J-1330 on
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
Channapatna- Kudlur Road, a Canter bearing registration
No.KA-42-662, driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a
high speed, came and dashed against the motorcycle, resulting
in all the petitioners falling down and sustaining grievous
injuries. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners were shifted
to the Government hospital at Channapatna and subsequently,
they were shifted to the Shekar hospital, Bangalore, where they
took treatment for considerable lengthd of time. Thereafter,
they continued their treatment at Punya Hospital,
Channapatna.
4. The petitioners contended that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Canter and therefore, the owner and the insurer of the
offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners.
5. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared through their counsel before the Tribunal and,
contended that the compensation claimed by these petitioners
is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable, and further
denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioners. Inter
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
alia, he also took up the contention that there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and
that there was violation of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy.
6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues and the
petitioners in all these petitions were examined as PW-1 to PW-
3 and Doctor who assessed the disability of injured, was
examined as PW-4. Ex.P1 to Ex.P58 were marked in evidence.
The official of respondent No.2-insurance company was
examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were marked in
evidence. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the
tribunal held that the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation to the appellants since there were no such
discernable violations of the terms and conditions of the policy.
It has awarded compensation to these appellants as follows:
a Medical expenses Rs.5,41,038/-
b Lay off compensation Rs.10,136/-
c Attendant charges Rs.5,600/-
d Loss of income Rs.2,88,007/-
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
e Pain and Sufferings Rs.20,000/-
f Loss of amenities in future life Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.8,84,781/-
Rounded to Rs.8,84,780/-
a Medical expenses Rs.61,171/-
b Attendant charges Rs.500/-
c Pain and Suffering Rs.20,000/-
d Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.1,02,671/-
Rounded to Rs.1,02,670/-
a Medical expenses Rs.1,30,659/-
b Attendant charges Rs.1,800/-
c Pain and Suffering Rs.20,000/-
d Loss of amenities in future life Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.1,72,459/-
Rounded to Rs.1,72,460/-
7. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment, the
appellants are before this court in appeals contending that the
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and
it has not considered all the factors which should have been
considered while assessing the compensation amount. It is
contended that there is a need for re-assessment of the
compensation amounts determined by the tribunal and
therefore, there shall be enhancement in the same.
8. So far as the appellant in M.V.C.No.318/2012 is
concerned, it is submitted that the appellant was aged 26
years, he suffered fracture of right femur, right ulna and right
clavicle along with fracture of right radius; he was agriculturist;
he was inpatient for 56 days in the hospital and therefore, the
compensation awarded is abysmally low and there shall be re-
assessment of the same.
9. So far as M.V.C.No.319/2012 is concerned, it is
contended that the appellant had suffered fracture of ulna,
fracture of writer of right arm, fracture of right femur and he
was inpatient for 6 days, aged about 25 years and was working
as a rider in a transport company. Therefore, learned counsel
for the appellant has sought for re-assessment of the
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
10. So far as the appellant in M.V.C.No.321/2012 is
concerned, it is submitted that the appellant was working in a
network company and was earning a sum of Rs.7,990/- per
month and he has suffered fracture of right femur and ligament
tear of the right knee. He was inpatient for 18 days, aged about
26 years and therefore, there shall be re-assessment of the
compensation.
11. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the
respondents submit that the compensation awarded by the
tribunal in all these three matters is proper and correct and
there is no need of re-assessment of the same. They have
defended the impugned judgment and have sought for
dismissal of the appeals.
12. The fact that there was an accident involving in the
canter owned by respondent No.1, insured by respondent No.2,
which hit the motor cycle ridden by the appellants from the
behind and resulting in the injuries is not in dispute. Though
the initial contention was taken up by the insurance company
denying its liability on the ground that there were violation of
the terms and conditions of the policy, such a contention was
not accepted by the tribunal and there is no appeal by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
insurance company in that regard. Therefore, the question
regarding the liability has attained finality.
13. So far as M.V.C.No.318/2012 is concerned, the
appellant M.K.Sharath has approached this court in
M.F.A.No.7451/2015. A perusal of the records would show that
the appellant having failed to establish that he was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month, the tribunal adopted the wages that are
being paid under the NAREGA, which was Rs.181/- per day
during the relevant period. Therefore, it held that the notional
income of the appellant is Rs.5,430/-p.m. By adopting the said
notional income, it calculated the compensation amount by
holding that there is a disability of 26%. It is pertinent to note
that the testimony of PW4 shows that there is a whole body
disability of 26% on account of the fracture of right femur,
fracture right ulna, facture of right clavicle and right radius. On
careful perusal of the medical records produced, this court does
not wish to interfere in the disability assessed by the tribunal.
14. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,136/-
towards the loss of income during the laid up period.
Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant
as mentioned above and as stated by PW4, it can safely be said
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
that the appellant was unable to resume his work atleast for a
period of 6 months. Therefore, considering the income of the
appellant at an approximate of Rs.5,400/- per month, the loss
of income during the laid up period is calculated as
(Rs.5,400x6) Rs.36,400/-. The appellant was inpatient for 56
days as per medical records. This would inevitably result in the
requirement of attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment
etc. A sum of Rs.5,600/- awarded by the tribunal being on the
lower side, the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.
15. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under the head of pain an suffering and the same is enhanced
to Rs.45,000/-. The compensation under the head of loss of
amenities in life also requires to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-
from Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal. PW4 has stated
that there is need for further surgery on account of the
implants. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the
appellant under this head, which shall not carry any interest.
The compensation awarded under the head medical expenses
does not require any interference by this court. Therefore, the
appellant is entitled for a additional compensation of
Rs.1,20,655/- under following heads:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
A Medical expenses Rs.5,41,038/-
B Lay off compensation Rs.36,400/-
Attendant charges, conveyance
C Rs.40,000/-
and nourishment
D Loss of income Rs.2,88,007/-
E Pain and Sufferings Rs.45,000/-
F Loss of amenities in future life Rs.30,000/-
G Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total compensation Rs.10,05,445/-
Compensation awarded by tribunal Rs.8,84,780/-
Total enhanced compensation Rs.1,20,665/-
16. So far as M.V.C.No.319/2020 is concerned, the
appellant herein is before this court in M.F.A.No.7151/2015. A
perusal of the records would show that the appellant viz.,
M.S.Chandru had suffered fracture of femur. He was inpatient
for 6 days and he was working as a writer in a transport
company. He was aged 25 years. The injuries were treated
with implants and it is his case that there being fracture of ulna
and fracture of right radius, definitely there is functional
disability to him. The writing being of importance for his
profession, the tribunal is not justified in denying the income
under the head of loss of future income due to disability. It is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
pertinent to note that though there is a salary certificate issued
as per Ex.P18, the employer is not examined, but it can safely
be held that he was a writer in a transport company and there
is functional disability. PW4 who assessed the disability states
that there is a physical disability of 15% to the whole body. It
is pertinent to note that the functional disability cannot be
assessed by the medical expert and in umpteen numbers of
judgments; it has been held that the Doctors or medical
practitioners can say about functional disability suffered by a
person and assessment of the functional disability is to be done
by the tribunals. In view of the same, the functional disability
of the appellant being a writer in a transport company has to
be held at 8%.
17. There being no other acceptable evidence in respect
of the income, a notional income of Rs.6,500/- is taken,
considering the fact that the document produced by the
appellant itself show the income of Rs.6,121/. Hence, the loss
of income due to disability by applying the multiplier of 17 is
assessed at Rs.1,06,000/- (Rs.6,500x12x8%x17).
18. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation
under the head of loss of income during laid up period and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
therefore, considering the laid up period to be three months, a
sum of Rs.19,500/- is awarded under this head.
19. The appellant was inpatient for 6 days and
therefore, a sum of Rs.6,000/- is awarded under the head of
conveyance expenses, attendant charges, nourishment etc.
20. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under pain and suffering and the same is enhanced to be
Rs.50,000/-.
21. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities in life, same is enhanced to
Rs.30,000/-. PW4 has stated that the petitioner needs a further
surgery for the removal of the implants and therefore, a sum of
Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of future medical
expenses which would not carry any interest. There is no need
for enhancement of the medical expenses awarded by the
tribunal. Hence, the appellant is entitled for a total an
additional compensation of Rs.1,95,001/- under following
heads:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
a Medical expenses Rs.61,171/-
b Attendant charges Rs.6,000/-
c Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/-
d Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
e Loss of income Rs.1,06,000/-
Loss of income during laid up
f Rs.19,500/-
period
G Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.2,97,671/-
Compensation awarded by tribunal Rs.1,02,670/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.1,95,001/-
22. So far as M.V.C.No.321/2012 is concerned, the
petitioner herein is the appellant in M.F.A.No.7452/2015. A
perusal of the records would reveal that the appellant was aged
25 years working as a cable operator at Hanumanthanagara,
Bengaluru and he has suffered fracture of right femur and
tearing of ligament of the right knee. As a result, he was
inpatient for 18 days. A perusal of the records would reveal
that there is no acceptable documentary evidence regarding his
income. The tribunal holds that in the absence of the such
evidence that he was working in J.K.Network, it did not accept
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
the salary certificate of the appellant, which is at Ex.P25.
However, it held that there is no functional disability which has
resulted in depletion of his income and as such, rejected the
claim on account of the disability.
23. It is pertinent to note that the appellant having
stated that he was working in J.K.Networks at
Hanumanthanagara and had produced the documentary
evidence as per Ex.P25 it can safely be said that he was
working in Network company as an employee. Definitely in
case, there is a fracture of femur and fracture of tearing of the
ligament, it results in any person involved in manual work with
disability. Therefore, the observations of the tribunal are not
sustainable. The employer of the appellant having not been
examined, the salary certificate at Ex.P25 is not established as
required under law. Therefore, the notional income of the
appellant has to be considered. The guidelines issued by
KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the
Lok Adalat prescribed a notional income of Rs.7,000/- per
month for the year 2011. In umpteen numbers of judgments,
this court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are
in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
Wages Act. Therefore, the notional income of the appellant is
taken at Rs.6,500/- per month.
24. PW4 has stated that there is a disability of 21%.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the
said physical disability of 21% would definitely result in
functional disability and in the considered opinion of this court,
the same would be 8%. Hence, the loss of income due to
disability is calculated as (Rs.6,500x12x8%x17) =
Rs.1,06,000/-.
25. Consequently, the loss of income during laid up
period is considered for a period of three months and the same
is assessed at (Rs.6,500x3) Rs.19,500/-.
26. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,800/-
under the head of attendant chares and considering the fact
that the appellant was inpatient for 18 days, the same is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, which would cover the conveyance
and nourishment also. The tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and the same
is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The compensation under the head
of loss of amenities in life is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- from
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
Rs.20,000/-. PW4 has stated that the fracture of the right
femur has resulted in a surgery with implants being inserted.
Therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of
future medical expenses, which would not carry any interest. In
the result, the appellant is entitled for an additional
compensation of Rs.1,78,699/- under following heads:
a Medical expenses Rs.1,30,659/-
b Attendant charges Rs.15,000/-
c Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000/-
d Loss of amenities in future life Rs.25,000/-
e Loss of income Rs.1,06,000/-
Loss of income during laid up
f Rs.19,500/-
period
g Future medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.3,51,159/-
Compensation awarded by tribunal Rs.1,72,460/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.1,78,699/-
27. For the aforesaid reasons, all these appeals are to
be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
(i) M.F.A.No.7451/2015 (M.V.C.No.318/2012) is
allowed in part. The appellant is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.1,20,665/- in addition to what
has been awarded by the tribunal along with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its deposit before the tribunal
excluding the interest on future medical
expenses.
(ii) M.F.A.No.7151/2015 (M.V.C.No.319/2012) is
allowed in part. The appellant is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.1,95,001/- in addition to what
has been awarded by the tribunal along with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its deposit before the tribunal
excluding the interest on future medical
expenses.
(iii) M.F.A.No.7452/2015 (M.V.C.No.321/2012) is
allowed in part. The appellant is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.1,78,699/- in addition to what
has been awarded by the tribunal along with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its deposit before the tribunal
excluding the interest on future medical
expenses.
(iv) Rest of the order passed by the tribunal regarding
deposit and release remains unaltered.
(v) The respondent No.2 - insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount as
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23063
HC-KAR
required under Section 368(3) of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SMC,SS
CT:SK
