[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha K vs K Ravi on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
MFA No. 755 of 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. 755 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA K
S/O R KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
AUTO MECHANIC
C/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE M. SAMPATH
SRI SHABARISH PROVISION &
GENERAL STORES
GONDHICHATTNAHALLI
SHIVAMOGGA POST
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ANIL SHEKAR K.S, ADV., FOR
SMT. MANJUAL N.C., ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. K. RAVI
by NANDINI M S
S/O LATE KANNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/O. 1ST CROSS, NMC RIGHT SIDE
HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
2. RAMESH K
S/O KUPPUSWAMY
R/O 2ND DIVISION
BOMMANAKATTE
HIRIYUR POST
BHADRAVATHI - 577 302.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
REP BY MANAGER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
MFA No. 755 of 2018
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NIRMALA, ADV., FOR R-3;
V/O DTD:22.11.2023, NOTICE TO R-2 IS
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED;
R-1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED05.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.160/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND AMACT-8, SHIVAMOGGA. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 05.01.2017 passed in MVC
No.160/2013 by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
Addl. MACT-8, Shivamogga (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken
up for final disposal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
HC-KAR
3. Sri Anil Shekar, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave
error in assessing the income of the injured and the
disability sustained by him. It is submitted that the
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the
head of loss of amenities, the compensation awarded
under the head of loss of income during laidup period is
also meager, and no compensation is awarded towards
transportation of the injured from the place of accident to
different hospitals though he has produced bills to that
effect. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the compensation by
considering the evidence on record.
4. Per contra, Smt. Nirmala, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 supports the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant has
failed to produce the evidence before the Tribunal with
regard to income. It is submitted that the Tribunal has
considered 1/3rd of the assessed disability of the doctor
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
HC-KAR
which is in consonance with the evidence on record. It is
further submitted that award of compensation by the
Tribunal on all other heads is just and proper, and there is
no scope to enhance the same. Hence, she seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for
respondent no.3 and meticulously perused the material
available on record
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 28.09.2012, the appellant
sustained grievous injuries. It is also not in dispute
between the parties that the accident is caused by the
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
HC-KAR
actionable negligence on the part of the offending motor
cycle which was insured with respondent no.3 and they
are liable to pay compensation.
8. The records indicate that the appellant was
provided treatment at Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga,
and thereafter, at KMC Hospital, Manipal. The injured
claimant had examined himself as PW-1 and got examined
CW-1 - Dr. Monappa Naik, and got marked the documents
at Exs.P-1 to P-131. The respondent got marked Exs.R-1 &
R-2. CW-1, during the course of his evidence got marked
Exs.C-1 to C-3. The Tribunal, after assessing the evidence,
awarded compensation of Rs.9,56,000/- along with
interest at 9% per annum.
9. The material on record would indicate that the
appellant had sustained open fracture of right distal femur,
open fracture of right proximal tibia, crush injury of right
foot with lisfranc's fracture. CW-1 assessed the disability
at 64% to his right lower limb, and considering the said
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
HC-KAR
evidence, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 21%. The
records further indicates that the appellant was inpatient
in the hospital for 190 days, undergone surgery for the
aforesaid fractures and post surgery he was treated as
outpatient in the said hospital. Taking note of the
aforesaid fractures, surgery undergone and the treatment
provided, I am of the considered opinion that disability to
the aforesaid injuries are required to be assessed at 23%
for the purpose of determination of compensation.
10. The income of the appellant-injured was
assessed at Rs.6,000/- though it is claimed that the
appellant was working as a mechanic. However, no proof
of income was placed before the Tribunal. Hence, the
income is notionally re-assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month
placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by
KSLSA. Having re-assessed the income, disability and taking
note of the fact that he was inpatient for 190 days initially, was
provided treatment at Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga, and
thereafter at KMC Hospital, Manipal, in order to claim the
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
HC-KAR
ambulance charges, the appellant has produced Exs.P-43 &
P-54. The said bills indicate that the appellant has incurred
more than Rs.76,000/- towards ambulance charges which has
not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not
assessed any compensation under the head of loss of amenities
to which the injured is entitled. Having re-assessed the income
and disability, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
required to be reassessed and the same is reassessed as
under:
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Pain & suffering 75,000/-
Medical expenses 5,95,781/-
Loss of income during laid up period 49,000/-
Loss food, attendant and conveyance 25,000/-
charges of the attendant
Ambulance charges 76,000/-
Loss of future income (7,000 x 12 x 16 3,09,120/-
x 23%)
Loss of amenities 60,000/-
Total 11,89,901/-
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
HC-KAR
Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a
total compensation of Rs.11,89,901/- as against
Rs.9,56,000/- 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
05.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal in
M.V.C.No.160/2013 is modified to an extent
that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.11,89,901/- as
against Rs.9,56,000/- 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) 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.
NC: 2026:KHC:16491
HC-KAR
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
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
