[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Srinivas V vs M/S K.G.Inter National School on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
M.F.A. No.10264/2018
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.10264/2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SRINIVAS .V
S/O VENKATAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT C/O APPAIAH
KANAKANAPALYA, KOLAR.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM (BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.,)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. M/S K.G. INTER NATIONAL SCHOOL
REPRESENTED BY HEAD MASTRESS
CHATRAKODIHALLI VILLAGE
KOLAR.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BINDU NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE
NEW EXTENSION, KOLAR.
3. THE HEAD MASTRESS
SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL
NO 1, GOTTIGERE
BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV., FOR R2
SRI. PALLAVA R, ADV., FOR R3
R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
M.F.A. No.10264/2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.59/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CJM, AT MACT, KOLAR, 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/claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 19.07.2018 passed in
MVC.No.59/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM,
and MACT, Kolar, (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. Smt.Suguna R.Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant-injured submits that the appellant was working
as a driver in BMTC and due to the accident he suffered
disability, he was required to leave the said job and
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
presently working as a security personnel in the same
employment, hence, he is entitled for compensation under
the head of loss of income due to disability. It is submitted
that the appellant was treated as an in-patient for 13 days
in the hospital and PW3-Doctor has assessed the disability
to a particular limb at 48% and to the whole body at 16%
and due to the disability, his income has reduced
drastically. It is further submitted that no compensation is
awarded towards loss of amenities in life and the award of
compensation by the Tribunal under all other heads is also
on the lower side. It is also submitted that the appellant is
entitled to compensation under the head of loss of income
during the laid-up period, as the appellant lost the leave
during the treatment, otherwise he would have
surrendered those leaves to the employer and in lieu of
the same, appellant would have earned a certain sum.
Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation by allowing
the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
4. Per contra, Sri.Janardhan Reddy, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the
evidence on record indicate that the appellant has
continued with his employment, though there may be a
change in the post from driver to the security personnel,
but, no evidence is placed to substantiate that due to the
disability, the appellant lost the employment or there is a
reduction in the income. Hence, the Tribunal considering
the said aspect awarded just compensation to the
appellant and there is no scope for enhancement of
compensation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing on both the sides and meticulously
perused the material available on record.
6. The appellant as well as the respondents do not
dispute that in a road accident dated 04.12.2014, the
appellant sustained grievous injuries and provided
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
treatment as an in-patient in the hospital for 13 days. The
averments in the claim petition indicate that the appellant
was working as a driver in the BMTC and drawing salary of
Rs.19,000/- per month in the year 2014. In order to
substantiate the claim, the appellant-claimant examined
himself as PW2 and also examined Dr.Imran Hussain as
PW3 and got marked the documentary evidence.
7. It is to be noticed that the appellant was
working as a BMTC driver and continued with his
employment even after the accident. Though it is
contended that due to the accidental injury and due to the
disability suffered by the appellant, he was compelled to
work as a security personnel in the BMTC, the said
statement is not supported with any evidence. More
particularly, there is no evidence on record to come to the
conclusion that the income/salary of the appellant is
substantially reduced due to the disability. The learned
counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that
there may be change in the nature of work that the
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
appellant is carrying out due to the accident, however,
there is no reduction in the income/salary. Hence, the
Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that there
cannot be any compensation under the head of loss of
income due to disability. I do not find any error in the said
finding recorded by the Tribunal in declining to award
compensation under the aforesaid head.
8. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to
compensation under the head of loss of income during
laid-up period is concerned, in my considered view, the
said contention has no merit for the simple reason that
there is no evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate
the said claim as to how much leave the appellant has
applied and granted and on surrender of such leave what
amount he would have been entitled. Hence, in the
absence of such evidence, the appellant would not be
entitled to any compensation under the head of loss of
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
income during the laid-up period as he has drawn the
salary for the said period.
9. It is to be noticed that the appellant has
sustained several injuries, fractures, based on such
injuries and treatment provided to him, PW3-Doctor has
assessed the disability at 48% to the right lower limb and
16% to the whole body. Considering the said evidence and
other medical evidence on record, I am of the considered
view that the compensation is required to be awarded
towards the loss of amenities and the compensation under
other heads is also required to be enhanced appropriately.
Hence, the compensation is re-assessed and the appellant
would be entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/-
towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges; Rs.65,000/- towards pain & suffering;
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical
expenses is unaltered. The direction of the Tribunal to the
respondent No.2-Insurance Company to pay the
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
compensation and to recover the same from respondent
No.1 is unaltered.
10. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to
modified compensation as under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Food, nourishment, conveyance and 25,000
attendant charges
Medical expenses 1,33,704
Pain & suffering 65,000
Loss of amenities in life 50,000
Total 2,73,704
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.2,73,704/- as against
Rs.1,95,704/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
appellant-claimant would be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.2,73,704/- as
against Rs.1,95,704/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
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 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 respondent No.2-Insurance Company
is at liberty to recover the award amount
along with interest from respondent No.1
in accordance with law.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16166
HC-KAR
f) The entire compensation amount shall be
released in favour of the appellant-
claimant.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3
