[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Lokesh on 23 January, 2026

                           -1-

                                       MFA No.81 of 2024



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                        BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.81/2024(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
CRESCENT COURT,K.M. ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY.
                                             ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. LOKESH,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       S/O LATE RAJU,
       RESIDENT OF NEAR: AUTO STAND,
       DANTHARAMAKKI,
       JYOTHINAGARA POST,
       CHIKKMAGALURU-577 101.

2.     SRI B. NAVEEN KUMAR,
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
       S/O BASAVANNA A.D.,
       RESIDING AT NO.14,
       MIG-2ND CROSS, HOUSING BOARD,
       CHIKKMAGALURU-577 102.
       (RIDER & OWNER OF BIKE
       NO.KA-18/EA-8137)

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ABHIRAJ .B. CHENGTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
 R2-SERVED)
                               -2-

                                           MFA No.81 of 2024



     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.09.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO.318/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.14,32,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6
PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
20.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA



                       CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated

29.09.2023 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and

MACT, Chikkamagaluru, in MVC No.318 of 2018.

2. The injured claimant, aged 23 years, doing concrete

work, met with an accident on 18.12.2017, and filed a claim

petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.

The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record,

granted the compensation of Rs.14,32,500/- with interest at

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till

realisation.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, Insurance Company has

preferred this appeal and mainly contented that doctor-P.W.2

assessed disability of the limb as 37.57% as the fractures are

related to left ankle and to that of the whole body as 12.50%.

But the Tribunal has taken the same as 50% and it is to be

reduced. Though the petitioner met with an accident in the

year 2017, Tribunal, instead of taking the monthly income of

the petitioner at Rs.11,000/-, has taken Rs.12,500/- without

any basis. The compensation granted under the other heads is

excessive and thus, requested for reduction of the

compensation.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner-claimant stated that

petitioner was doing concrete work and was a skilled worker,

earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering the nature of

work, the doctor assessed the disability as 50%. The Tribunal

assessed the disability as 50% by considering all the factors

and therefore, it needs no interference. The Tribunal has

rightly granted compensation and it need not be reduced.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both

sides.

6. Though petitioner has stated that he was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month, he has not filed any proof of income.

He met with an accident in the year 2017. Therefore, as per the

chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, his

notional income is to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. He

was aged 23 years and the multiplier is 18. As per the wound

certificate-Ex.P.4, petitioner has sustained right tibia shaft

fracture and medial mellaneous fracture and both are grievous

in nature. The petitioner also examined the doctor as PW2 and

he assessed the disability as 37.57% for permanent physical

impairment to the whole body. He further stated that there is

reduction in movement of right knee, right ankle and also loss

of muscle strength of right knee. Further, it is mentioned that

the petitioner is unable to sit cross leg and squat, petitioner has

lost some movement in his right ankle, muscle strength of right

ankle and he is unable to stand for long time.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner-claimant has stated

that the petitioner was a concrete worker and skilled in the said

work. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered that he requires

good physical strength otherwise he cannot stand for long time

and cannot work effectively and accordingly considered

disability as 50%. The learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj

Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. decided in Civil Appeal

No.8981 of 2010 dated 18.10.2010, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

"8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability n his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability."

8. In the present case, the doctor assessed the disability

as 37.57%. Therefore, this Court takes the same as 38%

instead of 37.57%. Thus, the loss of future earning capacity

comes to Rs.9,02,880/- (11,000 x 12 x 18 x 38%). The

petitioner was hospitalized from 18.12.2017 to 02.01.2018, i.e.

for a period of 15 days. Considering the nature of injuries,

period of hospitalization and his occupation, the Tribunal

granted Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for loss

of amenities and it is confirmed. He is entitled for Rs.33,000/-

(11,000 x 3) towards loss of income during the laid up period

as against Rs.37,500/- granted by the Tribunal. He is also

entitled for Rs.30,000/- for transportation and nourishment and

attendant charges. The Tribunal has not granted compensation

for medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries, this

Court grants Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.

9. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the

compensation of Rs.10,50,880/- with interest at 6% per

annum as against Rs.14,32,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is

modified as under:

                 Heads                    Amount in Rs.
 1. Loss of future income                     8,52,720/-

 2. Medical expenses                              10,000/-

 3. Pain and Suffering                            50,000/-

 4. Loss of amenities                             25,000/-

 5. Transportation, extra                         30,000/-
 nourishment and attendant charges

 6. Loss of earning during the laid up            33,000/-
 period
              Total                          10,50,880/-

11. In the result, the following order is passed:

      (i)     Appeal is allowed in part.

      (ii)    The claimant is entitled for the total compensation

of Rs.10,50,880/- with interest        at 6% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization.

(iii) The appellant insurance company is directed to

deposit the amount of Rs.10,50,880/- with interest at 6% per

annum within one month from the date of this order.

(iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to

withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on

it.

(v) It is submitted that the appellant insurance company

has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal.

Therefore, excess amount, if any deposited, shall be refunded

to the appellant-insurance company.

Sd/-