Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunath vs M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd on 24 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
MFA No. 1382 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1382 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O MUNI POOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. JAGAJEEVAN RAM COLONY,
DINNE ROAD, POOJAMA TEMPLE,
GANGAVARA, CHOWDAPPANAHALLI
BUDIGERE, DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL - 562 129.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN (BY SRI. GURUDEVA PRASAD K.T, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. M/S. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB
NO. 141, 4TH FLOOR, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
MFA No. 1382 of 2024
HC-KAR
OPP. CUPA, 3RD MAIN,
EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, ASTHURINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043.
2. SRI. SAI BABA TRANSPORT
PROP. MANJUNATHA N
GROUND FLOOR, NO. 105,
NARAYANASWAMY BUILDING,
HUSKUR KODI, VIRGO NAGAR POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, HUSKUR
BENGALURU - 560 049.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARA REDDY C, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1879/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM, BENGALURU MAYO HALL
UNIT SCCH-19 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
MFA No. 1382 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Gurudeva Prasad K.T learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Sri. Shankar Reddy.C learned
counsel for respondent No.1. At request of both the
learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing
and disposal.
2. The appellant as borne by record, sustained
injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year
2022. He filed a petition claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- in total. The Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru which dealt with the case as MVC
No.1879/2022 through the impugned award granted a
sum of Rs.14,13,500/- as compensation. Projecting that
he is entitled to a higher sum the present appeal is filed.
3. Sri. Gurudeva Prasad K.T, arguing the matter,
submits that the appellant sustained five grievous injuries
during the course of accident, was admitted to hospital on
three different occasions and took extensive treatment.
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
HC-KAR
However, he is left with disability of 32% in respect of
whole body. The appellant by working in Amazon company
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by the date of
accident. However, the tribunal took the notional income
as Rs.15,000/- per month unjustifiably. Learned counsel
states that the accident occurred in the year 2022 and for
the relevant period even the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.15,500/- per month for settlement of claims and atleast
said figure should have been considered by the tribunal.
Learned counsel also contends that the tribunal failed to
award any amount under the head loss of income during
laid up period. Learned counsel further submits that the
amount awarded as compensation towards future medical
expenses and loss of amenities in life is also on lower side.
Learned counsel ultimately seeks for enhancement in
compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
HC-KAR
4. On the other hand Sri. C.Shankara Reddy learned
counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the tribunal
awarded exorbitant sum as compensation under each head
more particularly under the head pain and suffering.
Learned counsel submits that without being satisfied with
the amount which was awarded by the tribunal, the
appellant preferred the present appeal and thus the appeal
is not maintainable.
5. By all the evidence produced, the appellant
succeeded in establishing that he sustained five grievous
injures in the road traffic accident. The evidence of PW-2
is that on examination he found foot drop of the right
ankle, dropping of the right shoulder, restricted right
shoulder movements with wasting of the right deltoid and
biceps muscles. He also deposed that X-ray has shown
malunited clavicle fracture with broken implant in situ and
X-ray of the right leg revealed united fracture of the tibia
with ilizator fixator insitu. The assessment of PW-2 is that
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
HC-KAR
the disability in respect of right lower limb is 77% and in
respect of whole body is 32%.
6. The tribunal taking into consideration the totality
of evidence produced took the disability in respect of
whole body as 20%. The said observation of the tribunal is
sound and therefore needs no interference.
7. In the light of the fact that the appellant is left
with disability of 20% in respect of whole body, this Court
is of the view that for assessing the compensation which
the appellant is entitled to under the head loss of future
earnings, future prospects are required to be added.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged
around 46 years by the date of accident. Therefore as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 case, 25% of the earnings
are required to be added towards future prospects. Also
this Court considers desirable to take the notional income
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
HC-KAR
of the appellant at Rs.15,500/- as sought for. Thus on
taking the notional income as Rs.15,500/-, on adding 25%
towards future prospects, on applying appropriate
multiplier '13' and disability in respect of whole body as
20% the compensation which the appellant is entitled to
receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.6,04,500/-
(15,500 x 12 + 25% x 13 x 20%). The tribunal through
the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- only
under the head 'loss of future earnings'. Thus, the
appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,36,500
(Rs.6,04,500/- - Rs.4,68,000/-) towards loss of future
earnings.
9. As rightly contended, the tribunal failed to award
any compensation towards loss of income during laid up
period. Having considered the fact that the appellant
sustained five grievous injuries and took treatment at
hospital on three different occasions, this Court is of the
view that the appellant would not have attended his
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
HC-KAR
normal pursuits atleast for a period of eight months. Thus,
loss of earning during laid up period comes to
Rs.1,24,000/- (15,500 x 8) The compensation that is
granted by the tribunal under all other heads is justifiable
and therefore needs no interference. Thus, the
compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive in
addition to the sum that is awarded by the tribunal is
Rs.2,60,500/- (1,36,500 + 1,24,000). Therefore, the
appeal is disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through
orders in MVC No.1879/2022 dated 09.08.2023 is
enhanced by Rs.2,60,500/-.
NC: 2025:KHC:38382
HC-KAR
iii. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit.
iv. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
v. On such deposit the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
CT: BHK
