[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivaprasad R vs Smt Girija M B on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
MFA No. 3727 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3727 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVAPRASAD R
S/O RANAGASWAMY,
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
NO.1049/B, SHATAVAHANA ROAD,
WEAVERS COLONY, BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE-560 019.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LATUR SURESH MAHALINGAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT GIRIJA M B
W/O BASAVANNA,
NO.107, VIJAYANAGAR,
5TH C MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGARA,
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560 104.
by
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR DESAI 2. THE MANAGER,
Location: High M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL
Court of INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
Karnataka
#30, 3RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTRE,
RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
OFF RICHMOND ROAD,
OPP. TO KANTEERAVA STADIUM
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2,
V/O DTD: 17.09.2025 NOTICE TO R1 ISD/W)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
MFA No. 3727 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3056/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE, ACMM AND MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-9), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
20.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award dated 01.02.2024 passed in MVC
No.3056/2021 on the file of the Small Causes Judge,
ACMM and MACT, Bangalore, for enhancing the
compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for
the sake of convenience.
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
3. Injured claimant met with accident on 22.03.2021
and filed claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire
evidence on the record, granted an amount of
Rs.4,09,971/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
date of petition till realization.
4. Aggrieved by the said award, he preferred an
appeal and mainly contended that injured aged 32 years
working in Packing Section of Postal Department and
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He examined the Doctor
and the Doctor assessed the permanent disability of left
lower limb as 27.29% and that of the whole body as
13.64%. The Tribunal granted interest rate of 6% which is
on lower side and the earnings was also taken as
Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, he requested for
enhancement of compensation as mentioned in the table
and for granting of interest at the rate of 9%.
5. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon citation
reported in arising out of 2025 ASV 1286 (SC) AIR
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
Online 2025 SC 559 in case of Suresh Jatav V
Sukhendra Singh and Ors, in which it was held that the
claimant injured was a skilled mason, suffered injuries in a
motor vehicle accident and later deposed that he was
unable to sit down, walked and could not lift heavy
weights and he could not have continued his chosen
vocation, and he assessed the functional disability as 35%
and income as Rs.6,000/- per month. The compensation
awarded for permanent disability, loss of income, medical
expenses, pain and suffering was enhanced. For the same
proposition, he also relied upon citation of Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2024 ACJ 2142 between
Aabid Khan Vs Dinesh and others in which it was said
as follows.
" In the light of the aforestated position of
law explained when the medical evidence
tendered by the claimant is perused, we
are of the considered view that tribunal
and the High Court committed a serious
error in not accepting the said medical
evidence and in the absence of any contra
evidence available on record, neither the
tribunal nor the High Court could have
substituted the disability to 10 per cent as
against the opinion of the doctor (PW 5)
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
certified at 17 per cent. In that view of the
matter the compensation awarded under
the head 'loss of income' towards
permanent disability deserves to be
enhanced by construing the whole body
disability at 17 per cent."
6. Learned counsel for appellant also relied upon
another citation reported in 2012 ACJ 1459 in case of
Manoj Rathaur Vs Anil Raheja and others in which the
treated Doctor stated that the petitioner suffered 20 to
25% permanent disability. But the Tribunal observed that
there is no evidence in rebuttal, that assessment made by
the doctor is not correct and injured could do his work with
same degree of efficiency. However, the view taken by the
Tribunal and High Court that he has not suffered any
permanent disability and his working capacity has not
been impaired, is not approved and the compensation is
enhanced. He also relied upon Civil Appeal arising out
of SLP (C) No.8074/2025 in which PW2 medical expert
stated that appellant suffered 64.14% disability in relation
to the right upper lower limb and 32% permanent
disability to the whole body. There is no reason to discard
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
the testimony of the medical expert. Accordingly, the
disability was taken as 32% to the whole body.
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 relied upon
a citation in Civil appeal No(s). 1337-1338/2019 @
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.2738-2739/2019
in which it was held as follows;
"this court will have to undertake the
exercise of assessing the whole body
disability and as per almanco manual,_
the whole body disability when
compared to the particular limb
disability would be 1/4th in respect of
that of the lower limb. In the instant
case, the lower limb disability assessed
by Dr. Lalit PW-3 is 48% and 1/4th of
the same would be 12%"
There is no dispute regarding the accident and rash and
negligent driving of the car. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 contended that the policy issued in favour
of respondent No.1 for car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MN-
9110 the insurance coverage is from 16.10.2020 to
15.10.2021 covering own damages only i.e., stand alone
policy and it does not cover the risk of third parties. Thus,
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
requested the court to dismiss the case against them as
they are not insurer of the car in question.
8. The petitioner met with an accident in the year
2021. Though he stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/-
per month he has not filed any income proof. Therefore,
his notional income is to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per
month, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority. As per Ex.P11 the date of birth
of the petitioner is 10.06.1988 and the date of accident is
22.3.2021 and therefore at the time of accident he was
aged 33 years. Hence, multiplier taken is '16'. It is
observed that as per Ex.P6/wound certificate petitioner
sustained following injuries;
(1) Fracture of proximal 1/3rd of Tibia,
(2) Tenderness present over left knee joint,
(3) Fracture of left tibia condyle on close flexion
(4) Fracture of left hand fingers of 3 and 4 and
others,
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
9. Further, it is stated that immediately after the
accident, first aid was given in KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru.
Operation of MIPPO (Minimally Invasive Percutaneous
plate Osteosynthersis) with plate and screws to left tibia
was done. He examined the PW2 Orthopedic Surgeon and
he assessed the disability to the lower limb as 27.29% and
whole body as 13.64%. In the cross-examination he
admitted that petitioner is using his left leg and fracture is
united and he can do his work with some difficulty. But the
Tribunal assessed the functional disability as 8%.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon
several citations to show that the actual disability assessed
by the doctor is to be considered for the purpose of
enhancement. Admittedly, there is no mal-union of the
fracture and fracture is united. Therefore, this court finds
it reasonable to consider 1/3rd of 27.9% i.e., 9% instead of
8%. Hence, the loss of future earning capacity comes to
15,000 X 12 X 16 X 9% = Rs.2,59,000/-. He is entitled for
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
Rs.2,59,200/- under the head loss of future earning
capacity. Tribunal granted Rs.66,141/- towards medical
expenses, as per Ex.P14. So also tribunal granted
Rs.4,430/- towards vehicle damage as per Ex.P13 and
they are confirmed. He was an inpatient for 11 days, as
per Ex.P10 discharge summary, considering the nature of
injuries, period Of hospitalization, his age and other
relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an
amount of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering,
Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.30,000/- per
transportation extra nourishment and attendant charges.
The petitioner might not have attended any other work at
least for a period of 3 months. Therefore, Rs.45,000/- is
to be granted under the head loss of income during laid up
period and the tribunal granted Rs.20,000/- towards
future medical expenses and it is confirmed.
11. Thus in all, components awarded by this court
are as below,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
Particulars Amount
Sl.Nos.
in Rs.
1 Loss of future earning 2,59,200
capacity
2 Medical expenses 66,141
3 Loss of vehicle damage 4,430
4 Pain and suffering 60,000
5 Loss of amenities 30,000
6 Transportation, extra 30,000
nourishment and attendant
charges.
7 Loss of income during laid 45,000
down period
8 Future medical expenses 20,000
Total 5,14,771
Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is
enhanced from Rs.4,09,971/- to Rs.5,14,771/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
12. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
ii. The judgment and award dated
01.02.2024 passed in MVC No.3056/2021
on the file of the Small Causes Judge,
ACMM and MACT, Bangalore, is modified.
iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.5,14,771/- along with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till the date
of realization, instead of Rs.4,09,971/-
granted by the tribunal.
iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has
already deposited the awarded amount
before the tribunal. Therefore,
respondent/Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,04,800/- along with the interest at
the rate of 6% within one month from the
date of this order.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14812
HC-KAR
v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount along with
interest accrued on the same.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKV
CT:NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
