Karnataka High Court
Sri. Siddaraju vs Vijaya N. Hegde on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37016
MFA No. 6242 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6242 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDARAJU
S/O NAGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKABORE GOWDANA DODDI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIJAYA N. HEGDE
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT NO.12/117, AGRAHARA,
Digitally signed THYAGARAJA ROAD,
by
SHARADAVANI CHAMARAJANAGAR - 573 313.
B
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE MANAGER
SRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.3/5, MONARK, CHURCH BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK KUMAR N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.01.2018, NOTICE TO R1
DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37016
MFA No. 6242 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.227/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM AND MACT, RAMANAGARAM, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 14.06.2017 passed in MVC
No.227/2011, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM
and Additional M.A.C.T., Ramanagaram, for enhancing the
compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of both the learned
counsel.
3. The petitioner/injured claimant had filed petition
before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.
The Trial Court considering the entire evidence on record
granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate
NC: 2025:KHC:37016
HC-KAR
of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the appellant was aged about 23 years and was doing
agriculture, dairy farming and flower vending business,
earning Rs.15,000/- per month and that due to the
accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disability.
5. To prove his case, the appellant before the
Tribunal examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to
P.7. PW.2 assessed the disability as 14.2% to the lower
limb and there is a malunion of fracture of left tibia with
implant insitu and thus he requires Rs.25,000/- for
removal of the implant. However, the Tribunal, without
considering the same, granted only Rs.50,000/-. The
appellant has also spent Rs.60,000/- towards medical
expenses, but no amounts are granted under the other
heads, he further requests for enhancement of the interest
to 12% instead of 6%.
NC: 2025:KHC:37016
HC-KAR
6. As per Ex.P.4, the wound certificate and the
evidence of PW.2, he has sustained fracture of right tibia,
which is grievous in nature. PW.2 further stated that the
petitioner was complaining of pain in the left knee and
ankle on standing for more than half an hour and on
walking more than two kilometers, difficulty in squatting in
left lower limb. PW.2 assessed the disability at 14.2% PPI
of the lower limb. Ex.P.6 is the disability certificate and
Ex.P.7 is the X-ray. Though petitioner stated that he was
earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., he has not produced any
document to prove his income. As he met with an accident
on 05.05.2011, this Court finds it reasonable to take his
notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month, as per the
guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority. As he was aged 23 years, the multiplier is to be
taken as '18'. Considering 1/3rd of 14.2% i.e., 5%
disability, the 'loss of future income' is assessed at
Rs.70,200/- (6,500 X 12 X 18 X 5%).
NC: 2025:KHC:37016
HC-KAR
7. PW.2 stated that he had examined the petitioner
on 23.03.2015. The petitioner was initially treated in
District Hospital and was later shifted to ESI hospital,
where he took treatment as an inpatient. Considering
injuries sustained by him, this Court finds it reasonable to
award Rs.20,000/- towards 'pain and suffering',
Rs.20,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' and Rs.30,000/-
towards 'transportation, extra nourishment and attendant
charges'. It is also reasonable to grant a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards 'medical expenses'. Since the
petitioner might not have attended to any work for at least
a period of three months due to the injuries sustained, this
Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500
x 3) towards 'loss of income during the laid-up period'.
PW.2 further stated that the petitioner requires another
surgery for removal of the implants, estimated to cost
Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to
grant Rs.25,000/- towards 'future medical expenses'.
NC: 2025:KHC:37016
HC-KAR
8. Thus in all, components awarded by this court
are as below,
Particulars Amount
in Rs.
Loss of future income 70,200.00
Pain and suffering 20,000.00
Loss of amenities 20,000.00
Transportation, extra 30,000.00
nourishment and attendant
charges
Medical expenses 10,000.00
Loss of income during laid 19,500.00
down period
Future medical expenses 25,000.00
Total 1,94,700.00
9. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a
total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,94,700/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
10. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2025:KHC:37016
HC-KAR
ii. The judgment and award dated
14.06.2017 passed in MVC No.227/2011,
by Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and
Additional M.A.C.T., Ramanagaram, is
modified;
iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs. 1,94,700/- along with interest at 6%
p.a as from the date of petition till the date
of realization, instead of Rs.50,000/-
granted by the tribunal.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
amount within one month from the date of
this order on such deposit and
v. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount along with interest accrued
on the same.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
