[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Gangadhara vs Nayaz on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16140
MFA No. 2995 of 2020
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. 2995 OF 2020 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
GANGADHARA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED 58 YEARS,
R/AT HIREBIDANUR VILLAGE AND POST,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561208.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NAYAZ
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT.SHAHEEN TAJ,
W/O LATE NAYAZ,
AGED 50 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/AT NO.855, KODIGENAHALLI,
by MADHUGIRI TALUK
SHARADAVANI
B TUMKUR DISTRICT.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. ICICI LAMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
NO.8/111, UPSTAIRS,COURT ROAD,
ANANTHPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.279/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., AND MACT, GOWRIBIDANUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16140
MFA No. 2995 of 2020
HC-KAR
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION AND ETC,.
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 04.04.2018 passed in
MVC.No.279/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC / Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Gowribidanur, (for short, 'Tribunal').
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. Vishwanath K, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing income,
disability and awarded meager compensation on all the heads.
It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award any
compensation under head of loss of amenities, attendant
charges, food conveyance etc,. Hence, he seeks to allow the
appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16140
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Sri. B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - insurance company
supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal
and submits that the accident is of the year 2007 the appellant
claims that he was working as a mason. However, no evidence
is placed on record to prove the same. Hence, the Tribunal
assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- which is on the higher side
and also assessed the disability at 25% which is based on the
evidence of the doctor. It is submitted that the award of the
compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is just and
proper and there is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he seeks
to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
meticulously perused the material available on record.
6. It is not disputed that the appellant met with a road
accident on 18.12.2007 and he was provided treatment initially
at Government District Hospital, Hindupura and thereafter, at
Sanjay Gandhi Accident Hospital and Research Institute,
Bangalore. As per the evidence of PW.2 and other medical
records, the appellant has sustained fracture of compound type
NC: 2026:KHC:16140
HC-KAR
II both bones of right leg, fracture of 3rd, 4th, and 5th
metacarpal of right hand and fracture of right hand and finger.
Based on the evidence of PW.2 and other medical records, the
Tribunal recorded its reason at paragraph No.19 and assessed
the disability at 25% of the whole body. I do not find any error
in assessing the disability. Similarly, the appellate - claimant
has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that he was
working as a mason and earning more than Rs.8,000/-. The
Tribunal considering the overall evidence and taking note of his
vocation, assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- which is as per the
evidence on record and does not call for any interference.
7. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 15
days i.e., from 18.12.2007 to 03.01.2008 and underwent
treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru. The doctor
assessed the disability at 39.10% to his right lower limb and
75% to the right upper limb. Based on such assessment of
disability, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 25%.
Considering the aforesaid evidence on record and keeping in
mind the nature of treatment provided to the appellant, I am of
the considered view that the compensation under the head of
loss of amenities is required to be awarded and also the
NC: 2026:KHC:16140
HC-KAR
compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up
period is required to be enhanced appropriately for a period of
3 months i.e., 8,000/- X 3 =24,000/-.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the compensation
is re-assessed as follows:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of future earnings 3,36,000/-
Pain and suffering 50,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period 24,000/-
food, conveyance and attending charges 15,000/-
Loss of amenities 50,000/-
Future medical expenses 20,000/-
Towards medical expenses 15,410/-
Total 5,10,410/-
Thus, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.5,10,410/- as against Rs.4,26,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award dated
04.04.2018 passed by the Tribunal, is modified to
NC: 2026:KHC:16140
HC-KAR
an extent that the appellants-claimants would be
entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,10,410/-
as against Rs.4,26,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realisation.
d) Respondent No.2 - 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 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
PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
