[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Puttaswamy vs Manjunatha B.V on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16138
MFA No. 1407 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2018 (WC)
BETWEEN:
PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE BASAPPA M
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT HOOVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEECHANAHALLI POST
H.N. PURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJUNATHA B.V.
S/O VENUGOPAL B.V.
R/AT, MAHADEVAPPA COMPOUND,
BURUJANAHATTI, CHITRADURGA
Digitally signed
TALUK AND DISTRICT.
by (RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO. KA-16-A9384)
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
Court of
Karnataka CO.LTD., NO.28, EAST WING,
V FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA. C.,ADVOCATE FOR R2.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2017 PASSED IN
ECA.NO.55/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XIX ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-23), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND ETC,.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16138
MFA No. 1407 of 2018
HC-KAR
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 - claimant challenging
the judgment and award dated 07.09.2017 passed in
ECA.No.55/2016 by the XXI Additional SCJ and XIX ACMM,
Member MACT, Bangalore, (SCCH-23), (for short,
'Commissioner').
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. Shirpad V Shastri, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submits that this appeal is filed being
aggrieved by the assessment of the disability by Commissioner
to the extent of 14.84%, which is contrary to the evidence of
PW.2 and other medical evidence on record. It is submitted
that, the oral evidence of PW.2 clearly indicates that, the
appellant sustained serious injuries and he is unable to
continue this vocation as he was working as a driver. Hence, he
seeks to re-assess the disability by allowing the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16138
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Sri. Lakshminarayana. C, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company supports the
impugned judgment and award of the Commissioner and
submits that the Commissioner considered 1/3rd of the
assessment of disability of PW.2 to a particular limb and
awarded a just compensation and needs no interference.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. The appellant as well as the respondents do not
dispute that, the appellant on 02.07.2015 sustained injuries. It
is not in dispute between the parties that, the injuries suffered
are during course of employment and the respondents are
liable to make good the compensation to the appellant for the
injuries sustained.
7. Perusal of the evidence of the injured, PW.2 -
doctor, wound certificate and the discharge charge summary
which are on record indicate that the appellant sustained
injuries like the fracture femoral condyle left side, blunt injury
abdomen, fracture right iliac crest and left kidney injuries. The
NC: 2026:KHC:16138
HC-KAR
records indicate that, PW.2 has clearly deposed before the
Commissioner that the appellant complained that he is unable
to sit on the floor, inability to sit crossed-leg, inability to climb
the stairs that he used to climb prior to the accident, difficulty
in standing for long time, there is difficulty in movement of his
limbs and he is unable to carry out his vocation. Taking note of
the fact that, the injuries suffered are to the limb, abdomen
and also to the kidney, I am of the considered view that, the
Commissioner has committed an error in considering 1/3rd of
the assessed disability. Taking note of the nature of injuries
suffered and evidence on record, I am of the view that, the
disability of the appellant is required to be re-assessed at 23%
as per the evidence on record for the purpose of determination
of compensation.
8. Insofar as award of compensation by the
Commissioner by considering the income, the relevant factor is
unalterable. The compensation is re-determined as under:
(8,000 X 60%) =4,800/-
4,800/- X 186.90 X 23% =2,06,337.6/-.
9. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to
modified compensation as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:16138
HC-KAR
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Compensation 2,06,337.6
Medical expenses 10,759/-
Attendant, food and nourishment charges 25,000/-
Total 2,42,096.6/-
10. Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.2,42,096.6/- as against
Rs.1,68,892/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
07.09.2017 passed in ECA.No.55/2016 by the
Commissioner is modified to an extent that the
appellant-claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.2,42,096.6/- as against
Rs.1,68,892/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest
at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realisation.
NC: 2026:KHC:16138
HC-KAR
iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severely
liable to pay the compensation amount to the
appellant - claimant.
v) Respondent No.2 - insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount
before the Tribunal within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
vi) The rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit
and release shall remain unaltered.
vii) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
PNV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
