[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagarathna Raju vs The Proprietor on 16 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
MFA No. 275 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 275 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT NAGARATHNA RAJU
W/O RAJU T
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: MAID & HELPER AT
M/S. GOZYPPY TRIPS
R/AT NO.99,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
B. NARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU-560016.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 1. THE PROPRIETOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA M/S. INDUSTRIAL CRANCE SERVICE
MR. MOHAMMED ISMAIL BAIG
S/O ABDUL RAWOOF BAIG
NO.87/A, 2ND FLOOR,
OFF: ITI ANCILLARY
G.C.PALYA, MAHADEVAPURA
BENGALURU-560048.
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH AND 6TH FLOOR,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
MFA No. 275 of 2018
HC-KAR
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2021,
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1438/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII
A.S.C.J, BENGALURU. 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/appellant seeking
enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 06.10.2017 passed in MVC
No.1438/2016 by the Court of XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate & XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, (for
short, 'Tribunal').
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
HC-KAR
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 for the
appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave
error in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.8,000/- per
month by ignoring the oral evidence of P.W.3 and vouchers
produced. It is submitted that P.W.2 has assessed disability of
27% of whole body and there is no reason to disbelieve the
same and hence, seeks to consider the said disability and
assess the compensation. It is further submitted that the award
of compensation on all other heads is required to be enhanced
appropriately. Lastly, he submits that the claimant is also
entitled to compensation on the head of loss of future prospects
of the injured at the rate of 40% of the assessed compensation.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Jwala Kumar learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award
by the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has recorded a
clear finding with regard to the rejection of the proof of income
as the appellant has failed to produce any corroborating
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
HC-KAR
evidence to support the evidence of P.W.3, hence income is
rightly assessed. It is submitted that the disability assessed by
the Doctor at 27% is on higher side and without any scientific
reasoning. The Tribunal considering the same has rightly
assessed the disability at 16% on appreciation of proper
evidence. Hence, the Tribunal considered the available evidence
and awarded a just and fair compensation to the injured
claimant, which does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he
seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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 above point is answered in the affirmative for
the following reasons:
8. The records indicate that the appellant met with a
road accident on 02.02.2016 and filed a claim petition seeking
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
HC-KAR
for compensation. In support of her claim, she has examined
herself as P.W.1 and also examined two other witnesses as
P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. The
respondent examined two witnesses and got marked Ex.R1 to
Ex.R13. The Tribunal after assessing the evidence on record,
awarded the compensation of Rs.3,66,800/- along with interest
at 8% p.a. It is to be noticed that the appellant sustained crush
injuries on her right foot as per the medical records, the
fractures of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal heads with type III
open fracture of medial malleolus. Dr.S.A.Somasekhar
examined as P.W.2 in order to prove the disability has assessed
the disability at 54% to right lower limb and 27% to the whole
body. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the said Doctor
has not divided the left lower limb disability by 3 while
calculating the whole body disability and when considering the
said aspect, it has assessed disability at 16%. Taking into
account the nature of fractures and the reasoning of the
Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal was
fully justified in the assessment of disability.
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
HC-KAR
9. Insofar as income of the injured is concerned, she
has contended that she was working as a maid and helper at
M/s Gozippy Trips, Bengaluru and used to earn Rs.12,500/- per
month, in order to prove the same, she has produced two
vouchers at Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 and also examined P.W.3. It is
to be noticed that the petitioner has failed to produce any other
document to show that she was appointed by the said
organization and she used to get the said amount regularly
much prior to the accident and it is also not forthcoming
whether she has lost the said employment due to the accident.
In the absence of such evidence, I am of the considered view
that the income of the injured is required to be re-assessed
notionally at Rs.9,500/- placing reliance on the chart prepared
by the KSLSA. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has
undergone treatment and surgery at Victoria Hospital from
02.02.2016 to 25.02.2016 and thereafter from 22.04.2016 to
27.04.2016. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, I am of the considered view that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be re-
assessed and accordingly the same is assessed as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
HC-KAR
Loss of Future - 9,500/- x 12 x 15 x 16%= 2,73,600/-
income due to
disability
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain & suffering 40,000/-
Medical expenses 43,387/-
Loss of income during laid up period 28,500/-
Loss of future income 2,73,600
Loss of future amenities and happiness 40,000/-
Attendant, conveyance, food and 20,000/-
nourishment charges
Future Medical expenses 15,000/-
Total 4,60,487/-
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.4,60,487/- as against Rs.3,66,800/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant/injured is entitled to compensation
under the head of loss of future prospects cannot be considered
as there is no evidence on record to substantiate that due to
the aforesaid disability, the appellant has lost the employment
and unable to carry out any work. Hence, the compensation of
the said head cannot be awarded.
NC: 2026:KHC:15285
HC-KAR
11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
06.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal is
modified to an extent that the appellant-
claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,60,487/- as against
Rs.3,66,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realisation.
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 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) Registry shall transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
