Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gopal S vs Sri. Arunkumar on 14 November, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 5738 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5738 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOPAL S
S/O SANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: CONTRACTOR,
R/O BELALAMAKKI,
GANDHINAGAR,
SAGAR TOWN - 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DINESH M BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ARUNKUMAR
S/O K.G. KRISHNA MESTHRI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O KELADI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
SAGAR TOWN - 577401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2. SRI YOGKUMAR
S/O NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O VINOB NAGAR,
SAGAR TOWN - 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
-2-
MFA No. 5738 of 2016
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
4. SRI MALLESHAPPA
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O NUGGE MALLAPURA,
SORABA TALUK - 577 413
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
5. SRI K G CHANNAPPA
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O NEAR INDIRA GANDHI COLLAGE,
SAGAR TOWN - 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SAGAR TOWN - 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
7. SRI N.CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O NINGAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O SIDDESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE,
KADUR - 577 548
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
V/O DTD:24.09.2019, NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R5 & R7 IS D/W)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.04.2016 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.311/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T.
SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR IN SO FAR AS DIS-
ALLOWING THE COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF RS.1,45,000/-
-3-
MFA No. 5738 of 2016
AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 28.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'MV Act') to modify
the Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2016 in MVC
No.311/2013 passed by the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Shivamogga sitting at
Sagar (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)
and allow the claim petition filed by the claimants.
2. The appellant/respondent herein is the
claimant/respondent before the Tribunal. The claim
petition under section 166 of the MV Act was filed by the
petitioner/claimant claiming the compensation of
Rs.9,45,000/-.
The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are
as under:
3. Petitioner/claimant, a PWD Contractor and
Agriculturist earning Rs.30,000/- per month, met with an
accident on 23.04.2012 at about 1:20 p.m. on NH-206
near Ullur-Hakrekoppa Cross while returning to Sagar in a
Prakash Travels bus Reg.No.KA15/7568 driven by
respondent No.4. One private bus Reg.No.KA-18-A-3123
driven by the respondent No.1 rashly dashed with it,
causing grievous injuries and permanent disability to the
petitioner/claimant, who spent heavy amount on
treatment. The respondents No.1, 4, 5, and 7 remained
ex-parte, while respondents No.2, 3, and 6 denied the
claim.
4. In order to substantiate his claim, the
petitioner/claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got
marked the documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P27. On the other
hand, respondents neither adduced any evidence nor
produced any documents.
5. The Tribunal, based on oral and documentary
evidence, partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs.1,45,000/-
with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till
realization. The respondents No.2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were
held jointly and severally liable, but respondent No.3 - The
National Insurance Company and respondent No.6 -
United India Insurance Company, were directed to deposit
50% each of the amount with costs and interest
respectively.
6. The Tribunal failed to properly consider that the
appellant, aged 36 years, was a Class II PWD contractor
and Agriculturist earning Rs.30,000/- per month, as
supported by Ex.P.20 (Contract Licence) and Ex.P.22
(Income Tax Return). Despite this, the Tribunal wrongly
assessed his income as Rs.20,000/- per month and
granted only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income during
the treatment period.
7. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed
to appreciate the medical evidence of PW2, who confirmed
that the appellant suffered severe restriction and pain in
the right upper limb affecting daily activities. Despite such
disability, only Rs.30,000/- was awarded for pain and
suffering, and the amounts awarded towards medical
expenses Rs.25,000/-, loss of future amenities
Rs.40,000/-, and conveyance, nourishment, and attendant
charges Rs.10,000/- are on the lower side. The Tribunal
also failed to grant any amount for future medical
expenses and loss of future earnings. Therefore, sought
for overall enhancement of compensation under all
relevant heads.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance
Company Limited and another by order dated
29.09.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.5510/2005,
Paragraph 7 of which reads as under:
"We do not intend to review in detail state of
authorities in relation to assessment of all damages
for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of
assessment of all damages for personal injury is
compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant
in the same position as he was in so far as money
can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one
has to keep in mind that the victim has done no
wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the
wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him
full and fair compensation for that he had suffered.
In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be
in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though
he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the
claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each
case has to be considered in the light of its own facts
and at the end, one must ask whether the sum
awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The
conventional basis of assessing compensation in
personal injury cases - and that is now recognized
mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is
taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate
multiplicand.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
10. In the present case there is no dispute regarding
the liability. Both the insurance companies have agreed for
50% liability with the interest @ 6% per annum
respectively as awarded by the Tribunal. The challenge is
only with regard to the enhancement of the compensation.
11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation as
under:
Sl.No. Particulars Rs.
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
2. Loss of income during Rs. 40,000/-
treatment period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-
4. Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
5. Conveyance, nourishment & Rs. 10,000/-
diet
TOTAL Rs.1,45,000/-
12. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.25,000/-
x 3) towards loss of income during laid up period, a sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. A sum of Rs.60,000/-
is awarded towards loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.20,000/-
is awarded towards Attendant charges, conveyance,
nourishment and diet. Further, claimant would be entitled to
loss of future earning as under:
Rs.25000/- p.m. minus 1/3 = Rs.14,000/-
As 21% disability is suffered by the claimant,
applying multiplier 15, the claimant would be entitled to
Rs.5,29,000/- (21% of Rs.14,000/- = Rs.3000/- X 12 X
15) towards loss of future earning.
13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation
as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Rs.
1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
2. Loss of income during Rs.75,000/-
treatment period (25,000 X 3)
3. Medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
4. Loss of future income Rs.5,29,000/-
5. Loss of amenities Rs.60,000/-
6. Attendant charges, Rs.10,000/-
conveyance, nourishment &
diet
TOTAL Rs.7,59,200/-
14. In the result, the following Order is passed:
i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed
in part.
ii) The claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.7,59,200/- along with
- 10 -
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date
of petition till realization.
iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 8/the
Insurance Companies are directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial
Court Records to the Tribunal, along with
certified copy of the order passed by this Court
forthwith.
vii) Amount in deposit along with accrued
interest if any, shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal.
Sd/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV
