Mr Kiran Kumar vs United India Insurance Co Ltd
2026 Latest Caselaw 2131 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2131 Kant
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Kiran Kumar vs United India Insurance Co Ltd on 10 March, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                      NC: 2026:KHC:14157
                                                    MFA No. 2440 of 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.2440 OF 2018(MV-I)
             BETWEEN:
             MR. KIRAN KUMAR,
             S/O. LATE ANAND BELCHADA,
             AGED 28 YEARS,
             R/AT BHAGAVATHI NILAYA,
             BENJANPADAV POST,
             AMMUNJE VILLAGE,
             BANTWAL TALUK,
             PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
             DHOOMAPPA COMPOUND,
             URVA MARIGUDI, MANGALURU - 575006.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
                   LOCAL OFFICE : 2ND FLOOR,
Digitally
signed by          RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX,
PAVITHRA B         KODIABAIL MANGALURU - 575 002.
Location:          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA    2.    MR JAYANTH
                   S/O DEJAPPA SAPALYA,
                   ADULT D. NO 3-151
                   MARIA HOUSE,KINIIBETTU POST,
                   AMTADY, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211

                                                      ...RESPONDENTS
             (BY SRI. S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED
                 09.11.2023)
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:14157
                                        MFA No. 2440 of 2018


HC-KAR




    THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2017 PASSED IN
MVC NO.874/2017    ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA
KANNADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION    AND    SEEKING    ENHANCEMENT    OF
COMPENSATION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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/claimant seeking

for higher compensation challenging the judgment and

award dated 16.10.2017 passed in MVC.No.874/2017 by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and I Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short).

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

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

up for final disposal.

3. Sri Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed

grave error in assessing the income, disability and award

NC: 2026:KHC:14157

HC-KAR

of compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is also

on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to reassess the same

by considering the oral as well as documentary evidence

available on record.

4. Per contra, Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Insurance

Company supports the impugned judgment and award of

the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has rightly

disbelieved the disability certificate and oral testimony of

the doctor on the ground that he is not a treating doctor,

but he has assessed the disability later in point. It is

submitted that the award of compensation on all other

heads is just and proper. It is further submitted that how

the medical expenses stated to have been incurred by the

appellant is more. However, the Tribunal has considered

that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is paid to the appellant under

the Sampurna Suraksha Scheme and the Tribunal after

deducting Rs.50,000/- has awarded the balance amount.

Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC:14157

HC-KAR

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel

for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1-

Insurance Company and meticulously perused the material

available on record.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this

appeal is:

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

7. The above point is answered in the 'affirmative'

for the following reason:

The records indicate that on 04.03.2017 the

appellant met with a road accident and sustained seven

injuries as it is evident from wound certificate at Ex.P4.

The records further indicate that the appellant was

provided treatment at A.J.Hospital, Mangalore and he was

inpatient for a period of 20 days from 04.03.2017 to

24.03.2017. In order to prove the claim petition, the

injured appellant examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to

NC: 2026:KHC:14157

HC-KAR

P.W.3 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15.

The respondents did not adduce any evidence and with the

consent got marked Ex.R1- insurance policy.

8. The parties does not dispute that respondent

No.1-Insurance Company is liable to pay the

compensation. It is to be noticed that the Tribunal on

appreciation of the evidence has awarded total

compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- with interest at the rate of

6% p.a., on different heads.

9. The Tribunal assessed the income of the injured

at Rs.7,500/-. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced

any income proof. Hence, his income is notionally

assessed at Rs.11,000/- per month. Taking note of the

injuries suffered as per Ex.P4 and oral evidence of P.W.3

and disability certificate at Ex.P8, I am of the considered

view that interest of justice would be met, if the disability

is assessed at 10% to the whole body for the purpose of

determination of compensation.

NC: 2026:KHC:14157

HC-KAR

10. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the

appellant has got reimbursement under the Sampurna

Suraksha Scheme to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and rightly

deducted the said amount from the actual medical bills

and awarded balance amount, I do not find any error in

the said finding of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has

committed an error in not awarding any compensation

under the head of loss of amenities. Hence, taking note of

the difficulty suffered by the appellant and treatment

provided, it would be appropriate to award Rs.40,000/-

under the head loss of amenities.

11. Hence, having reassessed the income and

disability of the injured and taking note of the nature of

treatment provided to the appellant/claimant and the

duration of treatment, I am of the view that the

compensation is required to be reworked, which is

reassessed as under:

NC: 2026:KHC:14157

HC-KAR

Sl.No. Description Amount

1 Pain and suffering Rs.70,000/-

2 Medical expenses Rs.46,700/-

3 Attendant charges, food, extra nourishment, conveyance Rs.25,000/-

charges etc.,

4 Loss of income during treatment period Rs.33,000/-

Rs.11,000/-x3 months

5 Loss of future income due to disability (Rs.11,000/-x12x17x Rs.2,24,400/- 10%)

6 Loss of future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-

7 Loss of amenities Rs.40,000/-

Total Rs.4,59,100/-

12. In the result, the Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,59,100/- as

NC: 2026:KHC:14157

HC-KAR

against Rs.2,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

(iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

(iv) Respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.