[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri S Somu vs The Manager on 6 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
M.F.A. No.2338/2020
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.2338/2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. SOMU
S/O SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT 468, VASTHI KENDRA
BLOCK-18, VIVEKANANDA SANKEERNA
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-78.
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
NO.672, 1ST FLOOR, 11TH MAIN ROAD
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 11.
2. MR. NANDISH KUMAR .N
S/O NAGARAJ
NO.1/188, NERALAGIRI VILALGE
NERALAGIRI POST
KRISHNAGIRI TALUK AND DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R. ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:04.01.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
M.F.A. No.2338/2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.11.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4070/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU C/C
XXII, ASCJ, ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), PARTLY
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 injured appellant seeking
for higher compensation challenging the judgment and
award dated 25.11.2019 passed in MVC.No.4070/2018 by
the IX Additional Small Causes & C/c XXII ASCJ and
Member MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-24), (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.Shripad V. Shastry, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
HC-KAR
erred in not awarding any compensation towards the loss
of 55 days leave availed by the appellant for undergoing
treatment. It is submitted that PW2 has clearly deposed
that the appellant is required to undergo another surgery
and that the cost of such surgery would be between
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. However, no compensation
has been awarded under the said head. It is further
submitted that the doctor has assessed the disability at
10% to the whole body and considering the said disability
and the nature of treatment provided, the compensation
awarded under other heads is required to be reassessed
by awarding some global compensation towards disability,
as the appellant is an employee working in the Food
Corporation of India (FCI). Hence, he seeks to allow the
appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Renuka H.R., learned counsel for
respondent No.1 opposing the appeal submits that the
award of compensation under the head of loss of future
income due to disability does not arise, as the appellant
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
HC-KAR
has continued his employment. It is submitted that insofar
as the claim for loss of leave is concerned, absolutely no
evidence was placed before the Tribunal except the
sanction order at Ex.P13. Hence, the Court cannot
presume such loss and award compensation on that basis.
It is further submitted that the award of compensation by
the Tribunal under the other heads is just and proper and
more particularly, the amount awarded under the head of
loss of amenities is on the higher side. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and perused the material available on record.
6. It is not in dispute between the parties that the
appellant met with a road accident on 04.07.2018 and was
provided treatment at Jayanagar Orthopedic Center,
Bengaluru. He was admitted as an inpatient for nearly 4
days from 06.07.2018 to 09.07.2018. Prior to the said
admission, he had visited the hospital once. As per the
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
HC-KAR
assessment of disability by PW2, the appellant has
sustained disability to the extent of 10% to the whole
body. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on
record, has held that the appellant has not lost his
employment due to the accidental injuries and therefore,
he is not entitled for any compensation under the head of
loss of future income due to disability. The said finding is
in consonance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and is based on the evidence available on record,
which does not call for any interference.
7. Insofar as the contention with regard to the loss
of leave of the appellant for 55 days is concerned, the
Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that in view of the
injuries sustained by the appellant, his
vocation/employment was not affected. It is also observed
that no evidence was placed on record to substantiate that
due to the injuries, the appellant has suffered any
pecuniary damages. In my considered view, the said
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
HC-KAR
finding is in consonance with the evidence available on
record.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 is right
in her submission that the appellant except producing
Ex.P13 has not placed any document before the Tribunal
to substantiate the fact that the appellant has applied for
leave and leave was granted for 55 days and that he did
not receive salary of the said period. In the absence of
such material particulars before the Tribunal, I am of the
considered view that the appellant is not entitled to any
compensation under the said head. Admittedly, the
appellant has not lost his employment due to the accident;
hence, the award of any compensation under the head of
loss of income due to disability does not arise. Accordingly,
the said contention is rejected.
9. Taking note of the nature of injuries suffered,
the disability assessed by PW2 and the reasoning assigned
by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the appellant is
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
HC-KAR
entitled to some enhancement of compensation under
certain heads. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to an
additional sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of special
diet, conveyance and attendant charges in addition to
the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the
appellant is also entitled to an additional sum of
Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.30,000/- in total, over and above the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The additional
compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
11. In modification of the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal
stands partly allowed. The respondent/insurer shall
NC: 2026:KHC:13736
HC-KAR
deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the
appellant. Registry to draw modified award accordingly
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
