Karnataka High Court
Sri. K Shankar vs The Joint Director on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36133
MFA No. 4650 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4650/2016 (WC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K SHANKAR,
S/O LATE KARIGUNDAIAH,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF BOLERO MAHINDRA,
R/O NO.40, 6TH MAIN,
6TH BLOCK, B S K 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (LEPROSY)
DRIECTORATE OF HEALTH &
FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
Digitally signed
by 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR DESAI INSURANCE DEPT,
Location: High GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
Court Of MOTOR BRANCH,
Karnatka VISWESHWARIAH TOWER,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1)(A) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.2.2016 PASSED IN
ECA.NO.306/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36133
MFA No. 4650 of 2016
HC-KAR
COMPENSATION AND FURTHER SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award dated 17.2.2016 passed in
ECA.NO.306/2014 on the file of the XXI Additional Small
Causes Judge, XIX ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, for
enhancing the compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2
and 3. The ranks of the parties are retained as per
tribunal for the sake of convenience.2.
3. Injured Workman filed claim application before
Workmen's compensation and claimed Rs.6,00,000/-, but
the tribunal considering the entire evidence on record
NC: 2025:KHC:36133
HC-KAR
granted Rs.2,06,070/- with interest at the rate of 12%
p.a., from the date of incident till the realization.
4. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred
by the claimant for enhancement and mainly contended
that he worked under respondent No.1 as a driver. On
15.10.2002, at 6.00 p.m., when he was driving the vehicle
on NH-48, at that time, right wheel of the vehicle got
punctured resulting which the petitioner lost control over
the vehicle and the vehicle turtled at the spot. As a result
of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and was
admitted in the hospital as inpatient from 16.10.2002 to
25.12.2002. He spent Rs.20,000/- for medicines,
conveyance, nourishment and other expenses. He was
aged 35 years working as a driver earning Rs.3,500/- per
month and Rs.50/- per day as bata. Therefore, requested
for enhancement of compensation with interest at the rate
of 12% p.a.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the petitioner sustained the following injuries i.e., crush
NC: 2025:KHC:36133
HC-KAR
injury on right hand with traumatic amputation of little
finger at MCP joint and ring finger at proxima I.P., joint,
lacerated wound 15X10 cms. Over anteromedial aspect of
right forearm, fracture of all five metacarpal bones,
abrasions over right arm debridement was done on
16.10.2022 and skin grafting and flap coverage was done
on 14.12.2002. PW2 further stated that he sustained
permanent disability of 76% to the right hand and 33%
disability to the whole body.
6. Considering the evidence, tribunal has taken the
whole body disability as 33% and as he was aged 35 years
his income was taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. As he
sustained permanent disability 60% of the income was
taken as Rs.2400/- and it is multiplied with the schedule
IV factor 197.06 and 33% (2400 X 197.06 X 33%) and
arrived to Rs.1,56,070/-. Apart from that Rs.50,000/- was
granted towards medical expenses and the total
compensation was granted.
NC: 2025:KHC:36133
HC-KAR
7. Learned counsel further contented that there is
amputation of right little finger at MCP joint and
amputation of right ring finger at PIP joint. As he was a
driver, he cannot do driving and his functional disability is
to be taken as 100% instead of 33%. But he has not
raised the said ground in his appeal and now came up with
this argument for the first time before this court.
8. Learned counsel for respondent contended that
disability was assessed based on the evidence of PW2 and
it needs no interference.
9. The tribunal has rightly taken the disability as
33% to whole body and it needs no interference. Further,
there is no dispute regarding income taken at the rate of
Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, this court finds no
reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal.
10. The tribunal considering all the aspects rightly
granted Rs.2,06,070/- with interest at the rate of 12%
p.a. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be rejected.
NC: 2025:KHC:36133
HC-KAR
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed and the
order of the tribunal is confirmed.
Respondent No.2 are directed to deposit the said
amount along with the interest, within one month from the
date of this order.
On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw
the entire amount along with interest accrued on the
same.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKV
