[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Renuka Kumar. S vs Sri. Murthy. V on 13 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
M.F.A. No.9837/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9837/2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RENUKA KUMAR .S
ALIAS RENUKA PRASAD C.S.
S/O SRIRAMAIAH
AGE 25 YEARS
OCC: DRIVER,
Digitally signed R/AT NO.1-4-849/57
by ARSHIFA CHANNAPURA VILLAGE,
BAHAR KHANAM MELEKOTE,
Location: HIGH DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
COURT OF BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. MURTHY .V
S/O VEERAIAH
NO.222, ARADESHIHALLI POST
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. C.V. DEVARAJ
NO.8/47, 4TH BLOCK
GOPALAPPA GARDEN
NEAR VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE
DODDABOMMASANDRA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
M.F.A. No.9837/2018
HC-KAR
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU-560097.
3. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, NO.28/5
SENTONARY BLAG,
M.G.ROAD
EAST WING,
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADV., FOR R3
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 IS D/W ON 10.03.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.8108/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM & XXIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, BENGALURU (SCCH-25),
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
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
M.F.A. No.9837/2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 17.10.2018 passed in
MVC.No.8108/2016 by the XXI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and XXIII Additional Small Causes
Judge, and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short,
'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up
for final disposal.
3. Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-claimant submits that the appellant is a
driver by vocation and used to earn more than
Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellant met with a road
accident and suffered disability which is evident from the
oral evidence of PW2, who has clearly deposed that the
appellant has sustained three fractures and his disability is
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
HC-KAR
to the extent of 25% to the whole body. However, the
Tribunal, ignoring the oral and documentary evidence, has
assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and
assessed disability at 8% and awarded meager
compensation under all heads. Hence, he seeks to allow
the appeal by enhancing the compensation appropriately.
4. Per contra, Sri.H.C.Betsur, learned counsel for
respondent No.3-Insurance Company supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and
submits that the vocation of the appellant-claimant cannot
be accepted as a driver as he failed to produce any
evidence to that effect. Hence, the Tribunal has notionally
assessed his income and disability and awarded just
compensation. He further submitted that PW2 is not a
treated doctor and he has assessed the disability after two
years of the accident, hence his evidence cannot be relied
upon. He also submits that award of compensation under
all other heads is also just and fair and needs no
interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
HC-KAR
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously
perused the material available on record including the
Tribunal records.
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 records indicate that the appellant-claimant
met with an accident on 18.11.2016 and initially he was
provided treatment at Nandi Hospital, Doddaballapura and
later at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The records also indicate
that the appellant-claimant was in-patient from
19.11.2016 to 29.11.2016. As per the wound certificate
issued by Nandi Hospital at Ex.P5, the appellant sustained
the injuries viz., (1) Abrasion over left Maxillary area, (2)
Laceration in left parotid area and (3) Leforte I B/1
Maxilary Fracture, right infra-orbital fracture, right
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
HC-KAR
mandible fracture, linear fracture of right Zigmatic arch
and temporo-zigmatic junction, fracture of B/L Ethomoid
and nasal bone and linear fracture of bilateral nasal bones.
PW2-Doctor has assessed the disability of the appellant-
claimant by considering and examining the appellant and
by perusing the records available and assessed the
disability of the appellant-claimant at 25% to the whole
body. Considering the nature of injuries referred supra,
treatment provided to the appellant and the oral evidence
of PW2, I am of the considered view that interest of justice
would be met if the disability is re-assessed at 10%.
Admittedly, the appellant-claimant has not produced any
evidence with regard to the income, hence, his income is
notionally re-assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month by placing
reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA.
The appellant was aged about 25 years as on the date of
accident, the appropriate multiplier would be '18', which
has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
HC-KAR
appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of
loss of future income due to disability as under:
Rs.9,500 X 12 X 18 X 10% = Rs.2,05,200/-.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the
compensation on all other heads is also appropriately re-
assessed by considering the fact that the appellant was in-
patient for about 12 days and suffered disability. Hence,
the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000/-
towards pain and suffering; Rs.28,500/- (Rs.9,500 X3)
towards loss of income during the laid-up period;
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of future amenities and
happiness and Rs.25,000/- towards attendant,
conveyance, food and nourishment charges. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical
expenses and future medical expenses is unaltered. Thus,
the appellant would be entitled to the modified
compensation as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
HC-KAR
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain & suffering 45,000
Medical expenses 18,460
Loss of income during laid up period 28,500
(Rs.9,500 x 3)
Loss of future income due to disability 2,05,200
Loss of future amenities and happiness 40,000
Attendant, conveyance, food and 25,000
nourishment charges
Future medical expenses 30,000
Total 3,92,160
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.3,92,160/- as against
Rs.2,72,700/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
appellant-claimant would be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.3,92,160/- as
against Rs.2,72,700/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
NC: 2026:KHC:15154
HC-KAR
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the
date of payment.
d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within
a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
e) The entire compensation amount shall be
released in favour of the appellant-
claimant.
f) Registry shall transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
