[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Kalavathi vs Ravi N on 24 March, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                            NC: 2026:KHC:17037
                                                          M.F.A. No.287/2018
                                                      C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018

                   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.287/2018 (MV-I)
                                             C/W
                        MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.288/2018 (MV-I)


                   IN M.F.A. No.287/2018:

                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. KALAVATHI
                   W/O SRI. ADINARAYANA
Digitally signed   AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM       OCC:GARMENTS FACTORY WORK
Location: HIGH     R/O HALAHALLI, DB PURA TALUK
COURT OF           BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
KARNATAKA
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,)


                   AND:

                   1.    RAVI .N
                         S/O SRI. NAGAPPA
                         R/AT NO.3624, YALUVALLI ROAD
                         VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
                         BENGALURU DISTRICT-562110.

                   2.    SRI. SRINIVASA
                         S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA
                         R/O ALLIPURA VILLAGE
                         GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
                         CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561210.
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:17037
                                       M.F.A. No.287/2018
                                   C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018

HC-KAR




3.   THE REGIONAL MANAGER
     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.,
     5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SYED SALMAN, ADV., FOR R2
    SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADV., FOR R3
         NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.69/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
& SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, MEMBER, DODDABALLAPURA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A. NO.288/2018:

BETWEEN:

     SRI. ADINARAYANA
     S/O SRI NARASIMHAPPA
     AGED 46 YEARS
     OCC:WEAVER
     R/O HALAHALLI, DB PURA TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADV.,)

AND:

1.   RAVI .N
     S/O SRI. NAGAPPA
     R/AT NO.3624, YALUVALLI ROAD
     VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     BENGALURU DISTRICT-562110.
                           -3-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC:17037
                                     M.F.A. No.287/2018
                                 C/W M.F.A. No.288/2018

HC-KAR




2.   SRI. SRINIVASA
     S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA
     R/O ALLIPURA VILLAGE
     GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561210.

3.   THE REGIONAL MANAGER
     THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.,
     5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.

                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R3
         NOTICE TO R1 & R2 D/W)

    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.08.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.70/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION   FOR     COMPENSATION      AND    SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL


                   ORAL JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed challenging the common

judgment and award dated 18.08.2017 passed in

M.V.C.No.69/2014 and M.V.C.No.70/2014 by the IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, Motor

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

Accident Claims Tribunal, Doddaballapura (for short, 'the

Tribunal').

2. Though these appeals are listed for admission,

with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is

taken up for final disposal.

3. Sri.Suresh M.Latur, learned counsel appearing

for the claimant in M.V.C.No.69/2014 submits that the

Tribunal has committed a gross error in assessing the

income of the injured at Rs.5,000/- p.m. He seeks to re-

assess the income notionally. It is submitted that the

assessment of disability by Dr.S.A.Somashekar - PW-3 is

at 33% to the lower limb and 7% to the whole body. It is

further submitted that the award of compensation by the

Tribunal on all the other heads is also meagre and seeks

to enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing

the appeal.

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

4. Insofar as M.V.C.No.70/2014 is concerned, he

submits that the income of the claimant is assessed at

Rs.5,000/- p.m. which is required to be re-assessed

notionally and the disability of the injured claimant has to

be re-assessed at 25% to the whole body as per the

evidence of PW-3. It is submitted that the claimant

sustained fracture of tibia and femur and hence, there is

no reason for the Tribunal to reduce the disability to an

extent of 8%. It is further submitted that the award of

compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is also

required to be appropriately enhanced by considering the

nature of treatment provided and the disability suffered by

the claimant. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

5. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance

on the following decisions:

(i) SURESH JATAV Vs. SUKHENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS1

(ii) AABID KHAN Vs. DINESH AND OTHERS2

(iii) SURESH Vs. SENTHIL B & ANR.3

2025 AAC 1286 (SC)

2024 ACJ 2142 (SC)

C.A. @ SLP (C) No.8074/25 dt. 05.05.25

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

6. Per contra, Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.3 in M.F.A.No.287/2018

and Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent No.3 in M.F.A.No.288/2018 support the

impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submit

that the claimants in both the claim petitions failed to

produce any evidence with regard to their income and

hence, the Tribunal was fully justified in assessing the

income of the claimants at Rs.5,000/- p.m. It is submitted

that the Tribunal, taking note of the fractures suffered by

claimants and taking note of the fact that PW-3 has

assessed the disability on the higher side to benefit the

claimants to get higher compensation, has re-assessed the

disability. It is further submitted that the award of

compensation by the Tribunal on all the heads in both the

cases is just and proper and does not call for any

interference.

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

7. I have heard the arguments put forth by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned

counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in both the

cases and meticulously perused the material on record.

8. The appellants-claimants as well as the

Insurance Company are not disputing that both the

claimants sustained grievous injuries in a road accident

that occurred on 06.05.2014. The Insurance Company is

liable to make good the compensation amount. In order

to substantiate their claims, the claimants examined

themselves as PW-1 and PW-2, got examined

Dr.S.A.Somashekar as PW-3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P100. The Insurance Company examined Dr.Subhas as

RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal, considering

the oral and documentary evidence has awarded the total

compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- in M.V.C.No.69/2014 and

Rs.1,58,000/- in M.V.C.No.70/2014 with interest at the

rate of 6% p.a.

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

9. Insofar as M.V.C.No.69/2014 is concerned, the

claimant was working in a private firm under a substantial

sum and in order to prove the vocation and income, the

claimant has produced the I.D. card as Ex.P10.

Considering the said evidence, the Tribunal has assessed

the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- p.m. In my

considered view, based on the I.D. card, the assessment

of income of the injured claimant may not be appropriate.

Hence, her income is notionally assessed at Rs.8,500/-

p.m. placing reliance on the notional income chart

prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority

(KSLSA). The evidence on record indicates that the

claimant has sustained fracture of pattella and based on

such fracture and injury, PW-3 has assessed the disability

at 33% to the particular limb and considering the said

evidence and other documentary evidence, I am of the

view that it would be appropriate to re-assess the

disability at 11% for the purpose of determination of the

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

compensation. On having re-assessed the disability,

income and taking note of the nature of treatment

provided and the follow-up treatment obtained by the

claimant, the compensation is required to be re-assessed

as under:

                    HEADS                   AMOUNT
                                            (in Rs.)
         Pain & suffering                       40,000
         Loss of amenities                      40,000
         Medical bills                          15,825
         Loss of future income due to
         disability                            1,68,300
         (8500 x 12 x 15 x 11%)
         Future medical expenses                 15,000
         Food, attendant charges and
         conveyance                              15,000
         Loss of income during laid up
         period
         (8,500 x 3 months)                      25,500
                       Total                  3,19,625

Thus, the appellant-claimant in M.V.C.No.69/2014

shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,19,625/-

as against Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. In M.V.C.No.70/2014, in the absence of any

proof of income, the income of the claimant is notionally

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

assessed at Rs.8,500/- p.m. placing reliance on the

notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA. The

claimant has examined PW-3 who has deposed before the

Tribunal that the claimant has sustained fracture of fibia

and left femur shaft and based on such fracture, PW-3 has

assessed the disability at 49% to the particular limb and

25% to the whole body. The Tribunal, considering the

said evidence has assessed the disability at 8% to the

whole body. In my considered view, the Tribunal has

committed a grave error. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

the cases of SURESH JATAV, AABID KHAN AND

SURESH referred supra, clearly held that unless there is

any justifiable reason, the Tribunal should not tinker with

the opinion of the expert. Keeping in mind the enunciation

of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred

supra and also taking note of the fact that the claimant

has sustained two fractures, I am of the considered view

that the assessment of disability by the doctor to the

whole body at 25% is on higher side. Hence, it would be

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

appropriate to re-assess the same at 18%. Having re-

assessed the income and the disability, the compensation

under the other heads is also required to be re-assessed

appropriately which is as under:

                    HEADS                    AMOUNT
                                             (in Rs.)
         Pain and suffering                      40,000
         Loss of amenities                       40,000
         Medical bills                           47,675
         Loss of future income due to
         disability
         (8500 x 12 x 14 x 18%)                 2,57,040
         Future medical expenses                  10,000
         Food, attendant charges and
         conveyance                               15,000
         Loss of income during laid up
         period
         (8500 x 3 months)                        25,500
                       Total                   4,35,215

Thus, the appellant-claimant in M.V.C.No.70/2014

shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,35,215/-

as against Rs.1,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17037

HC-KAR

ORDER

a) The appeals are allowed in part.

b) The impugned common judgment and award

dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Tribunal in

M.V.C.Nos.69/2014 and 70/2014 is modified to

an extent that the claimant in

M.V.C.No.69/2014 would be entitled to total

compensation of Rs.3,19,625/- as against

Rs.1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the

claimant in M.V.C.No.70/2014 would be entitled

to total compensation of Rs.4,35,215/- as

against Rs.1,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.