[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Narayana vs Sri D Ramesh on 10 March, 2026

                                            -1-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:14182
                                                        M.F.A. No.278/2018


                 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.278/2018 (MV-I)


                BETWEEN:

                 SRI. NARAYANA
                 S/O SRI. PERUMAL
Digitally signed AGE 44 YEARS
by ARSHIFA       R/AT NO.46, VENKATESH LAKSHMIPURA
BAHAR KHANAM
                 LAKSHMIPURA, JIGANI HOBLI
Location: HIGH   ANEKLA TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA        BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106.

                                                               ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,)


                AND:

                1.    SRI. D. RAMESH
                      S/O SRI. DORAI SWAMY
                      R/AT NO.3, 7TH MAIN ROAD
                      GARVEBHAVI PALYA
                      HONGASANDRA MAIN ROAD
                      BENGALURU DISTRICT-560068.

                2.    SRI. K. RAMALINGA
                      S/O SRI. KALI MUTHU
                      NO.3, WARD NO.9, G.B.PALYA
                      BENGALURU-560068.

                3.    THE REGIONAL MANAGER
                      REGIONAL OFFICE
                      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
                      5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
                                  -2-
                                                   NC: 2026:KHC:14182
                                               M.F.A. No.278/2018


HC-KAR




    NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE
    BENGALURU-560001.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:06.12.2021 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)
                           ---
     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3238/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M & XXIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENTAL
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION      AND     SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT      OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.03.2026, 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 injured-claimant

challenging the judgment and award dated 08.09.2017

passed in M.V.C. No.3238/2013 by the XXI A.C.M.M and

XXIII A.S.C.J, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru,

(SCCH-25), (for short 'Tribunal') seeking for higher

compensation.

2. Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel for the

appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

the income of the injured-appellant. It is submitted that

the Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of PW-1

and other medical records. It is further submitted that the

functional disability of the appellant-claimant is required to

be calculated at 100% as he is unable to perform any

activity. It is also submitted that the award of

compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side.

Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal and enhance the

compensation. In support of his contentions, he placed

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of LALAN D. AND ANOTHER Vs. ORIENTAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.1 and the decision of this

Court in the case of MANJUNATH Vs. SUNIL AND

ANOTHER2. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel for

respondent No.1/insurance Company supports the

impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and

submits that the evidence of PW-1 cannot be relied as he

2020 ACJ 2517

2023 ACJ 490

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

is not a treating doctor and he has assessed the disability

in the year 2016 i.e. 3 years after the accident. It is

submitted that the Tribunal, considering the evidence has

awarded compensation under all other heads, which does

not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss

the appeal.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel

for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material

available on record including the Tribunal records.

5. The point that arises for consideration in this

appeal is:

"Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

6. The records indicate that the injured-claimant

was walking on Bannerghatta Road near Government

school, Weaver's Colony. At that time, a motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-51-R-2541 ridden by its rider in a rash

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

and negligent manner dashed the injured-claimant causing

grievous injuries. The injured-claimant was treated at the

NIMHANS hospital and thereafter shifted to Abhaya

Hospital, Bengaluru. The injured-claimant filed a claim

petition seeking compensation for the permanent disability

and the loss of the livelihood caused to him. The injured-

claimant examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P23. The respondents neither examined any witnesses

nor marked any documents. The Tribunal, after recording

the evidence, hearing the arguments and analyzing the

material on record, proceeded to award the compensation

of Rs.12,97,600/- along with interest at 8% p.a under

various heads.

7. The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured

at Rs.8000/- per month. Though the claimant asserted

that he was a stone dresser by vocation and was earning

Rs.15,000/- p.m., but no cogent material was placed

before the Tribunal to prove the same. Hence, the income

assessed by the Tribunal is as per the notional income

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

chart prepared by KSLSA, which is just and proper and

does not call for any modification.

8. Insofar as the disability is concerned, the

Tribunal assessed the same at 73.95% to the whole body

and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,93,888/- towards the

head of loss of future income due to disability. The

records indicate that the claimant met with the accident on

26.03.2013 and he was provided treatment as an inpatient

for 17 days in NIMHANS hospital, Bengaluru and Abhaya

Hospital, Bengaluru. The claimant examined PW1-

Dr.Sharan Srinivasan, Consultant Neurologist, Abhaya

Hospital, Bengaluru. The said witness has deposed before

the Tribunal that the claimant sustained severe head

injury in the road traffic accident, was unconscious, was

provided treatment at NIMHANS hospital and thereafter,

was shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bengaluru. PW-1 has also

narrated in his affidavit about the treatment provided to

the claimant and assessed his disability at 73.95%, but

the functional disability was assessed at 100%. PW-1 has

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

clearly stated that he has followed the guidelines issued by

NIMHANS to assess the disability. To arrive at such a

conclusion, a detailed calculation has been provided at

paragraph 4 of his affidavit and the said affidavit is as per

the standard guidelines issued by DGHS, Government of

India and NIMHANS. The said witness has been cross-

examined at length. However, nothing is elicited to

disbelieve the same. I have perused Ex-P7-disability

certificate, Ex.P11-certified copy of the wound certificate

and other medical records. On considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered

view that the Tribunal has grossly erred at assessing the

disability at 73.95%. It is important to note that the

claimant was aged about 43 years at the time of the

accident and being a stone dresser by vocation, would not

be able to perform any duties and earn a livelihood due to

his disability. On re-looking the entire evidence on record,

I am of the considered view that the functional disability of

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

the claimant is required to be re-assessed at 100% for the

purpose of determination of compensation.

9. It would be useful to refer to the decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJKUMAR Vs. AJAY

KUMAR & ANOTHER3, wherein the relevant paragraphs

read thus:

"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation.

(2011) 1 SCC 343

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."

(emphasis supplied)

10. In another decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of LAXMAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

COMPANY LIMITED4, at paragraph 15 of the judgment

has held as under:

"15. The ration of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."

(emphasis supplied)

11. It is apt and necessary to refer the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH Vs. MOHAN

AND OTHERS5, wherein at paragraph 14, it is observed

as under:

"14. In making the computation in the present case, the Court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engage in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of

(2011) 10 SCC 756

(2018) 4 SCC 571

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing- atleast in the facts of this case- can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity"

(emphasis supplied)

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

SARNAM SINGH Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD. AND OTHERS6 , has held as under:

"9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar And Others. In the

(2023) Livelaw (SC) 498

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

aforesaid case the injured 3 (2018) 4 SCC 571 4 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 498 - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5567 MFA No. 100381 of 2021 was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work being performed by the person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning capacity from 50% to 90%."

(emphasis supplied)

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

13. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, I am

of the considered view that the functional disability of the

claimant is required to be re-assessed at 100%. Having

assessed the disability at 100%, the claimant would be

entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future

prospects at the rate of 25% of the assessed income. The

claimant is not entitled to any compensation under the

head of loss of amenities in view of the award of

compensation under the head of loss of future prospects at

the rate of 25% of the assessed income. The Tribunal

awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of attendant,

conveyance, food and nourishment charges, which is

meagre as the claimant requires an attendant to attend to

his activities and taking note of his travel requirements to

hospitals, interest of justice would be met if we award a

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the same. The

compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of

loss of income during the laid up period, which is not

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:14182

HC-KAR

awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded

under the head of pain and suffering is on lesser side,

which is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-.

14. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the

compensation is re-assessed as under:

                     HEADS                             AMOUNT
                                                       (in Rs.)
    Pain and suffering                                  1,50,000/-
    Medical bills                                       2,13,650/-
    Loss of income during laid up period                  25,000/-
    Loss of future income due to disability            16,80,000/-
    (Rs.8000/- + 25% x 12 x 14 x 100%)

conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges 1,00,000/-

TOTAL 21,68,650/-

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.21,68,500/- as against Rs.12,97,600/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

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

following: