[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Kategowda vs Girisha M N on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16492
MFA No. 8931 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8931 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI KATEGOWDA
S/O SRI KATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O K GOLLARAHATTI
KETHUMARANAHALLI POST
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 168.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK K, ADV.)
AND:
1. GIRISHA M.N
S/O SRI NEELAKANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT MANJIHALLI VILLAGE
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALURU DIST.
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M
S 2. BASAPPA H.N
Location: HIGH S/O SRI NINGAPPA B
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
KARNATAKA
R/O B HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST.
3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SHASHIKIRAN BUILDING
IST FLOOR, SHANKARMATT ROAD
SHIMOGGA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R-3;
R-1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DT:07.2.2023, NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16492
MFA No. 8931 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.
79/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT AND I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL CHIKKAMAGALURU, 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 09.08.2019 passed in MVC
No.79/2018 by the Court of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal and I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Chikkmagaluru, (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken
up for final disposal.
3. Sri Pradeep Naik, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave
error in considering the evidence of CW-1 and has
NC: 2026:KHC:16492
HC-KAR
awarded meager compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the
head of disability. No compensation is awarded under the
head of loss of amenities and loss of income during laidup
period. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the compensation by
considering the evidence available on record, by allowing
the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned
counsel for respondent No.3 supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that
CW-1 is not the treated doctor and he has only issued a
disability certificate. It is submitted that the appellant has
sustained lacerated wound and for that the doctor cannot
assess 50% of the disability, which is exorbitant. Hence,
considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of disability, and
awarded just compensation on all other heads. Hence, he
seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16492
HC-KAR
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 and meticulously perused the material
available on record including Tribunal records.
6. The only point that would arise for
consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal calls for any
interference?"
7. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute
that in a road accident dated 23.10.2017 the appellant had
sustained lacerated wound on right knee measuring 7 x 10
cm as per Ex.D-12. In order to prove the claim, the
petitioner examined himself as PW-2 and got examined
Dr. Sudhakar as CW-1 who had issued the disability
certificate at Ex.P-21.
8. Perusal of Ex.P-21 and the oral evidence of the
CW-1, the doctor is of the opinion that the appellant has
NC: 2026:KHC:16492
HC-KAR
sustained 50% disability to a particular limb. Considering
the nature of injuries suffered and the evidence of CW-1,
the disability certificate at Ex.P-21, I am of the considered
view that ends of justice would be met, if the disability is
assessed at 15%.
9. Admittedly, no evidence is placed with regard to
the income. Hence, the income of the injured is assessed
at Rs.11,000/- placing reliance on the notional income
chart prepared by KSLSA.
10. Having re-assessed the income and disability,
the compensation is required to be re-assessed by
considering the oral evidence of CW-1 and other medical
evidence on record and also keeping in mind the fact that
the appellant was inpatient for a period of 19 days. Thus,
the appellant would be entitled to modified compensation
as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:16492
HC-KAR
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of future income due to disability 2,17,800/-
(11,000/- x 12 x 11 x 15%)
Pain & suffering 50,000/-
Food, nourishment, attendant charges, 20,000/-
etc.
Medical expenses 2,910/-
Loss of income during laidup period 33,000/-
(11,000/- x 3)
Loss of amenities 50,000/-
Total 3,73,710/-
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.3,73,110/- as against
Rs.1,63,110/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. 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
09.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.79/2018 is modified to an extent that
the appellant-claimant would be entitled to
NC: 2026:KHC:16492
HC-KAR
total compensation of Rs.3,73,110/- as
against Rs.1,63,110/- 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) The respondent-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 the 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
KK
