[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri S. Ramesh vs Sri V Srinivasa on 16 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15409
M.F.A. No.3266/2020
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.3266/2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. RAMESH
S/O K.V. MAHALINGHA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.177/B, MILK COLONY
SUBRAMANYANAGAR
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA BANGALORE-560021.
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
COURT OF FLAT NO.B5-504, KAILASH
KARNATAKA JNANABHARATHI RESIDENTIAL ENCLAVE
VALAGERAHALLI, KENGERI
BENGALURU-560 059.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURTHY M.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. V. SRINIVASA
S/O K. VENKATACHALAM
MAJOR, R/A NO.81, 1ST CROSS
4TH MAIN ROAD, K K LAYOUT
PAPAREDDY PALYA
MALLATHAHALLI
BANGALORE-560072.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
NO.25, SHANKAR NARAYANA BUILDING
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15409
M.F.A. No.3266/2020
HC-KAR
M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
NOW PRESENTLY AT:
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
KRUSHI BHAVAN
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADV., FOR R2
R1 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V/C/O/DTD:09.12.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1134/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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
challenging the judgment and award dated 09.08.2019
passed in MVC.No.1134/2007 by the VII Additional Small
Causes Court Judge and XXXII ACMM, Member MACT,
Bengaluru, (SCCH-03), (for short 'the Tribunal').
NC: 2026:KHC:15409
HC-KAR
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken
up for final disposal.
3. Sri.Murthy M.V., learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a
grave error in not awarding any compensation under the
head of loss of future earnings due to disability by ignoring
the oral evidence of the appellant and other documentary
evidence available on record. It is submitted that the
appellant was hospitalized as an inpatient for 9 days and
underwent two surgeries. It is further submitted that
considering the fractures sustained, the nature of injuries
and the treatment provided to the appellant, the appeal is
required to be allowed by enhancing the compensation
appropriately.
4. Per contra, Sri.M.Arun Ponappa, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and
submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered the
NC: 2026:KHC:15409
HC-KAR
evidence available on record. It is submitted that the
reason at paragraph No.19 of the judgment clearly
indicates that the appellant continued in his employment
even after the accident and for the non-working days, the
Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss
of income during the laid-up period. It is further submitted
that the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation under
the heads of loss of amenities and pain and suffering.
Hence, there is no scope for enhancement of
compensation and therefore, he seeks to dismiss the
appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and meticulously perused the material available on record
including Tribunal records.
6. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute
that the appellant met with a road accident on 20.12.2006
and was provided treatment as is evident from the
evidence of PW1 and PW2 and other material available on
record. The doctor has assessed the disability at 30% to
NC: 2026:KHC:15409
HC-KAR
the particular limb and 10% to the whole body. It is
averred that the injured was earning Rs.21,452/- per
month from his employment. The evidence on record
indicates that even after the accident, the appellant
continued in his employment and there is no loss of
income. In view of the evidence on record in that regard,
the Tribunal was fully justified in declining to award any
compensation under the head of loss of future income due
to disability. However, considering the nature of the
injuries and fractures extracted by the Tribunal in
paragraph No.13 of the judgment and taking note of
Ex.P5, the wound certificate and oral testimony of PW2,
the doctor, I am of the view that the compensation
awarded under the head of future medical expenses and
other heads are required to be enhanced appropriately.
Instead of enhancing the meagre compensation under
each of the heads awarded by the Tribunal, it would be
appropriate to award an additional compensation of
Rs.50,000/- to the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is
NC: 2026:KHC:15409
HC-KAR
entitled to an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as
compensation.
7. The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The additional
compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
8. In modification of the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal
stands partly allowed. The respondent/insurer shall
deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the
appellant. Registry is directed to transmit the Tribunal
records forthwith and draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
