[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Mahesha vs Sri Krishnegowda on 10 March, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:14184
                                                        M.F.A. No.693/2018


                 HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                          BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.693/2018 (MV-I)


                 BETWEEN:

                 SRI. MAHESHA
                 S/O KANTHARAJU
                 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                 R/AT. MARISHETTYHALLI
                 SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI
Digitally signed CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
by ARSHIFA       HASSAN DISTRICT.
BAHAR KHANAM                                                   ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
                 (BY SRI. R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH AND
KARNATAKA
                     SMT. GEETHA M.R. ADVS.,)

                 AND:

                 1.    SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA
                       S/O DAVEGOWDA, MAJOR
                       R/AT MARANAHALLI
                       MASALE HOSAHALLI POST
                       SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI
                       HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT.

                 2.    THE MANAGER
                       NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
                       NO. 4/12, NAVEEN COMPLEX
                       1ST FLOOR, HEBBALA MAIN ROAD
                       METAGAHALLI, MYSORE CITY - 16.
                                                           ...RESPONDENTS

                 (BY SRI. B.S. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV., FOR R2
                          NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
                                      -2-
                                                  NC: 2026:KHC:14184
                                                  M.F.A. No.693/2018


HC-KAR




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR LCR AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 17.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC 1761/2015
BY THE COURT OF THE 4TH ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT     AT    HASSAN        (SIT    AT    CHANNARAYAPATNA)      BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE
CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


     THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

                          CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the

judgment and award dated 17.08.2017 passed in MVC

No.1761/2015 by the Court of the IV Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (for short, 'Tribunal').

2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken

up for final disposal.

NC: 2026:KHC:14184

HC-KAR

3. Sri.R.P.Somashekaraiah and Smt.Geetha.M.R,

learned counsels for the appellant submit that the Tribunal

has erred in assessing the income and disability of the

claimant as no compensation is awarded under the head of

loss of income due to disability. It is submitted that the

Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence on record has

awarded a meagre compensation under all the other

heads, which is required to be enhanced. Hence, they

seek to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned

judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the

Tribunal has appreciated the evidence on record in its

proper perspective and passed the impugned judgment

and award, which does not call for any interference.

Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsels for the appellant, learned counsel for the

NC: 2026:KHC:14184

HC-KAR

respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material

available on record.

6. The only point that would arise for

consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether the judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

7. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute

that on 16.08.2015 at 3.30 p.m. on B.M.Road near

Kodibelagula gate, Channarayapatna Taluk, a car bearing

Reg.No.KA-13-N-3891, driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed against a TVS moped bearing

Reg.No.KA-51-EL-6536, as a result of which, the appellant

suffered grievous injuries. The appellant filed a claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short 'MV Act'). In the said petition, the appellant

examined witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked

documents Exs.P1 to P23. The respondents did not

examine any witness but got marked Ex.R1-copy of

NC: 2026:KHC:14184

HC-KAR

Insurance policy. The Tribunal, on considering the

evidence on record proceeded to pass the impugned order

granting of Rs.9,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of

9% per annum.

8. The oral testimony of the claimant as well as

PW-2 indicate that the appellant sustained open

comminuted fracture distal 1/3rd of both bones of right leg

with type 3 degloving injury on the same leg. The

appellant was hospitalized from 16.08.2015 to 30.09.2015

and he was operated on 17.08.2015 for wound

debridement and temporary fixation of external fixator.

Despite the same, the whole lower 1/3rd of tibia exposed

and hence, cross leg flap insitu was done 21.08.2015 by

plastic surgery. However, despite all these treatments, the

wound infection persisted. PW-2 - Doctor has further

deposed that repeated wound debridement was done on

20.08.2015, 22.08.2015, 26.08.2015 and 31.08.2015 with

cross-leg flap insitu. He also deposed that the claimant

was advised for Llizarov fixator for bone graft, however,

NC: 2026:KHC:14184

HC-KAR

the bone was not united and hence, the injured-claimant

was readmitted on 05.12.2015 and was discharged on

18.12.2015. It was also deposed that the claimant was

once again admitted on 26.04.2016 and a limb was fixed

with Llizarov fixator for union of fracture and he was

discharged on 28.06.2016 with an advise to turn the bolt

of fixture, dress wounds and review once a week. The

records indicate that the claimant was again admitted on

18.01.2017 and was treated till 03.03.2017 and as per the

evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal assessed the disability

to an extent of 45% to the lower limbs and considering the

same, further assessed the disability to an extent of 15%

to the whole body. In my considered view, taking note of

the fracture and injury suffered and the reasons assigned

by PW-2, it would be appropriate to assess the disability at

18% to the whole body. The claimant was aged about 40

years and claimed to have been earning Rs.20,000/- p.m.

from agriculture and business. However, no evidence was

placed to prove the same and hence, his income is

NC: 2026:KHC:14184

HC-KAR

assessed at Rs.9000/- p.m. I am of the considered view

that the Tribunal, without any justifiable reason has

refused to award compensation under the head of loss of

income due to disability, which is not in consonance with

the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena

of cases. Hence, the compensation towards loss of future

income due to disability is assessed as under:

(Rs.9,000 x 12 x 15 x 18%) = Rs.2,91,600/-

9. I am also of the considered view that the

compensation awarded under the head of pain and

suffering requires to be enhanced. Furthermore, the

Tribunal has awarded an exorbitant amount under the

head of loss of income during the laid up period.

However, in view of re-appreciating the pleading and

evidence on record, the same is required to be re-

assessed. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, the

award of compensation by the Tribunal is required to be

re-assessed as follows:

NC: 2026:KHC:14184

HC-KAR

HEADS AMOUNT (In Rs.) Pain & suffering 2,00,000 Medical bills 3,65,000 Future Medical Surgery 1,00,000 Loss of income during laid up 54,000 period (Rs.9000 x 6 months) Loss of future income due to 2,91,600 disability Loss of amenities, conveyance, 2,00,000 food and nourishment and attendant charges Food, nourishment, conveyance 50,000 and attendant charges Total 12,60,600

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

total compensation of Rs.12,60,600/- as against

Rs.9,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed-in-part.

b) The impugned judgment and award dated

17.08.2017 passed in MVC No.1761/2015 by

the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the

claimant would be entitled to a total

NC: 2026:KHC:14184

HC-KAR

compensation of Rs.12,60,600/- as against

Rs.9,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date

of petition till realization.

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 the

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.