[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokesh vs Sri A B Jayaram on 6 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13777
MFA No. 1945 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1945 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH
S/O MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O NO.165 2ND CROSS
RAILWAY LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
MYSORE - 570 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI D.T. NANJESH GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI A.B. JAYARAM
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MEGALKERI
CHANNRAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 231.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI M S 2. REGIONAL MANAGER
Location: M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
HIGH COURT COMPANY LIMITED
OF MADHU COMPLEX
KARNATAKA
MYSURU ROAD
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 187.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY R, ADV., FOR R-2;
R-1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1345/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13777
MFA No. 1945 of 2020
HC-KAR
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement
of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 21.01.2019 passed in MVC No.1345/2017 by the Court of
IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, sitting at
Channarayapatna, (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
3. Sri D.T.Nanjesh Gowda, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the
income and disability of the injured. The award of
compensation on all other heads is also contrary to the
evidence on record. Hence, he seeks to enhance the
compensation appropriately by allowing the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:13777
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Sri Janardhan Reddy.R., learned counsel
for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal having
taken note of the oral evidence of PW-2 and disability
certificate, has rightly assessed the disability at 16% which
does not call for any modification. He submits that no proof of
income was produced before the Tribunal, and therefore, the
Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.9,000/- per month. It is
submitted that award of compensation by the Tribunal on all
heads is higher and needs no interference. Lastly, he submits
that without any justifiable reasons, the Tribunal has awarded
interest at 9% and if the court entertains to enhance the
compensation, the interest has to be awarded at 6% per
annum. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. The only point that would arise for consideration in
this appeal is :
NC: 2026:KHC:13777
HC-KAR
"Whether the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal calls for any interference?"
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant met with a
road traffic accident on 15.02.2017 and sustained injuries
referred to in Ex.P-7 which has been considered by the Tribunal
in Issue No.2. Considering the oral testimony of PW-2 and
other medical records, I am of the opinion that the assessment
disability at 16% does not call for modification.
8. In so far as the income of the injured is concerned,
admittedly no proof of income was placed before the Tribunal.
Hence, the income of the injured is notionally assessed at
Rs.11,000/- per month placing reliance on the chart prepared
by the KSLSA. The appellant was inpatient for a period of seven
days. Hence, the compensation on all other heads are required
to be enhanced as under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain & suffering 50,000/-
Loss of future income and loss of future 3,37,920/-
earning capacity (11,000 x 12 x 16 x
16%)
NC: 2026:KHC:13777
HC-KAR
Medical Expenses 20,000/-
Loss of amenities 50,000/-
Conveyance, food and nourishment and 20,000/-
attendant charges
Loss of income during laid up period 33,000/-
(11,000 x 3)
Total 5,10,920/-
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.5,10,920/- as against Rs.4,06,480/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
21.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal is
modified to an extent that the appellant-
claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.5,10,920/- as against
Rs.4,06,480/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realisation.
NC: 2026:KHC:13777
HC-KAR
d) The respondent No.2 shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
e) The rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal with respect to apportionment,
deposit and release shall remain unaltered.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
KK
