SRI NAGESH V vs M/S SHYAM MICO
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6006 OF 2019
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGESH V,
S/O VENKATESH P,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8,
KUMBARAGUNDI LAYOUT,
NEAR S.J.P. POLICE STATION,
J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-02
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S SHYAM MICO,
TH RD
NO.352/A, 6 MAIN, 3 PHASE,
60 FEET-THAMMAIAH ROAD,
MANJUNATHANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P. HUB,
TH TH
5 AND 6 FLOORS,
KRISHIKA SAMAJ BUILDING,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
OPP. BBMP HEAD QUARTER,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DT.28.06.2023, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO a) MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT
PASSED IN MVC NO.2960/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE ON THE FILE THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(SCCH-16) VIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2018;
b) ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT; AND ETC
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge an Award
dated 26.06.2018, passed by the learned Small Causes
and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bengaluru (SCCH-
16) in MVC No.2960/2017 [hereinafter referred to as the
“Impugned Award]. By the Impugned Award, a sum of
Rs.3,77,500/- has been granted along with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum, excluding interest on a sum of
Rs.20,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses,
however, after deducting 20% towards the contributory
negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant from out
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
of total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal at
Rs.4,71,673/-.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the
appellant/claimant.
3. Briefly the facts are that on 27.02.2017 at about
12:30 midnight, the appellant/claimant was proceeding on
his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EP-7926. At
that time, a Tata Ace bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-
2864 being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the
Motorcycle of the appellant/claimant. Due to the impact,
the appellant/claimant fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. He was taken to Sapthagiri Hospital and
thereafter shifted to NRR Hospital where he took
treatment as an in-patient and even underwent a surgery.
4. A claim petition was filed by the appellant/claimant
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
[hereinafter referred to as the “MV Act”], stating that he
was working as a Claims Processing Executive in HGS
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
International Services Private Limited, earning a sum of
Rs.18,353/- per month. However, on account of the
accident, he became permanently disabled and has lost
earning capacity.
5. The respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle, despite
service, did not appear before the learned Tribunal and
hence, he was proceeded with ex-parte . The respondent
No.2/Insurance Company appeared and contested the
matter by filing a Written Statement. It was stated by the
Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle did not
possess a valid driving license. However, the involvement
of the vehicle was not denied. It was contended that the
accident took place due to the negligence of the appellant/
claimant himself and sought dismissal of the claim
petition.
6. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the
following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
“1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained
grievous injuries due to the road traffic accident alleged to
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
have occurred on 27-02-2017 at about 12-30 midnight
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata
Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AA-2864?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3) What order or Award?”
7. In order to prove his case, the appellant/claimant
examined himself as PW-1, examined an official of the
Medical Record Department at the NRR Hospital,
Hesaraghatta, as PW-2 and a Doctor as PW-3. The
appellant/claimant also marked twenty four documents
which included FIR (Ex.P-1), Complaint (Ex.P-2), Spot
Mahazar (Ex.P-3), Sketch (Ex.P-4), IMV Report (Ex.P-5),
Notice under Section 133 of the MV Act (Ex.P-6), Reply to
Notice (Ex.P-7), Charge Sheet (Ex.P-8). In addition,
Wound Certificate (Ex.P-9), discharge summary (Exs.P-10
& P-11), NC of Aadhar Card (Ex.P-12), medical
prescriptions (Ex.P-13), 92 medical bills (Ex.P-14), NC of
Identity Card and Driving License (Exs.P-15 & P-16),
Appointment Letter (Ex.P-17), 24 Prescriptions (Ex.P-18),
23 medical bills (Ex.P-19), three x-rays (Ex.P-20),
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
authorization letter (Ex.P-21), entire case sheet (Ex.P-22),
OPD Slip (Ex.P-23) and one X-ray (Ex.P-24) were marked
by the appellant/claimant. However, the respondent No.2/
Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses nor
produced any documents.
8. Having regard to the fact that in the cross-
examination, the appellant/claimant had admitted that the
accident would not have occurred if he had allowed the
Tata Ace to go ahead, the learned Tribunal held that the
appellant/ claimant has also contributed negligence to the
extent of 20% and the remaining 80% is attributable to
the driver of the offending Tata Ace vehicle.
9. An examination of the record reflects that the
learned Tribunal found that although the appellant/
claimant was stated to be working as a Claims Processing
Executive, he had not produced any salary slip or bank
statement to prove his income. Further, the learned
Tribunal also gave a finding that although the Doctor has
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
assessed the permanent physical disability to the lower
limb at 66% and the whole body disability at 33%, the
rd
same is not on 1/3 basis and thus re-assessed the whole
body disability at 19%. Thus, the Tribunal awarded global
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards physical
disablement. In addition, amounts were also awarded
towards pain and suffering, attendance charges, medical
expenses, loss of income during treatment period, loss of
future amenities and future medical expenses in the
following manner:
Sl.
No.
Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
1 pain and suffering 50,000/-
2 Attendant charges, extra nutritious food 17,500/-
and conveyance expenses
3 Loss of income during laid up period -
4 Medical expenses 2,04,173/-
5 Loss of future income due to permanent -
disability
6 Physical disablement 1,50,000/-
7 Loss of future amenities and happiness 30,000/-
8 Future medical expenses 20,000/-
TOTAL 4,71,673/-
Less: 20% towards contributory 94,335/-
negligence
Total compensation entitled: 3,77,338/-
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
Rs.3,77,338/-, but rounded off to
Rs. 3,77,500/-
10. The challenge in the present appeal is only by the
appellant/claimant. No challenge to the Impugned Award
has been made by the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company or the respondent No.1/Owner.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has
stated that the compensation towards loss of future
income on account of physical disability was not calculated
taking the whole body disability, but only a global
compensation was awarded. He further submits that
compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period
also should have been awarded since the appellant/
claimant was treated as an in-patient for a period of
twelve days in two different Hospitals and had also
undergone a surgery and taken follow-up treatment.
11.1 Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant that although the Doctor found the
8
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
permanent physical disability to the lower limb at 66% and
the whole body disability at 33%, but the learned Tribunal
has re-assessed the disability at only 19%, which is
required to be reconsidered by this Court.
12. So far as concerns the liability, the Tribunal held that
the Insurance Company although had alleged that there
was no valid driving licence, the contention failed to be
proved and thus it was held that the liability is on the
Insurance Company to make payment of the award
amount.
13. This Court has examined the record as well as the
findings of the learned Tribunal. So far as concerns the
loss of future income due to physical permanent disability,
the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
but has awarded a lump sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards
physical disablement. Given the settled position of law,
even if the income of the appellant/claimant could not be
proved, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the
9
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
notional income of the appellant/claimant. Since the
accident happened in the year 2017, the notional income,
as per the Notional Income Chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru
[KSLSA] is taken at Rs.11,000/- per month. As per the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
1
Sethi and others , 40% is required to be added towards
loss of future prospects to the notional income, as the
appellant/claimant was aged about 24 years.
14. An examination of the record, as placed on record by
the evidence of the Doctor [PW-3] reflects that the Doctor
has set out in his examination that the appellant/claimant,
has complained of pain and inability to walk without a foot
splint and an elbow crutch. He has stated that the patient
also has inability to squat and sit cross-legged. After
examining the injured claimant, the Doctor also found that
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
10
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
there is gross wasting of the right lower limb as well as
several surgical scars over right hip and thigh. He also
found that there is loss of muscle power around right hip
knee by one grade each and right ankle by 3 grades, i.e.
20 x 0.3 x 5=30% and mobility component is 30+19.5(90-
30)/90=43% and calculated the total stability component
at 45%. Thus, based on these aspects, the Doctor
calculated the total disability of the right lower limb at
66% and that of the whole body at 33%. The Doctor also
found that the injured claimant could not carry out any
physical or manual work. The relevant extract of the
Doctor’s evidence is set out below:
“I have gone through his Discharge Summary before
assessing the disabilities.
Now on presentation he complaints of pain and
inability to walk without a foot drop splint and an
Elbow crutch. He gives history of inability to squat and
sit cross legged.
ON EXAMINATION:
> Walks with severe pain and limping using an Elbow
crutch and a Foot drop splint.
> Gross wasting of (Rt) lower limb is seen Surgical Scars
are seen over (Rt) Hip and thigh.
His recent X-ray No.972/09-01-2018 shows:
11
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
> United fracture Acetabulum (Rt) Hip with implants in
situ
> United fracture Shaft (Rt) Femur with osteopetrosis/
osteopasia with implants in situ
HIS DISABILITIES ARE:
ROM (Rt) Side
(Lt) Side
HIP Flexion/Extn 0-140° 0-100°
(0-140°)
Abduction/
Adduction 0-90° 0-50°
(0-90°)
Rotations 0-90° 0-60° = 10.31%
(0-90°)
KNEE
Flexion / Extn 0-130° 0-90° = 9.23%
(0-125°)
GIRTH: Thigh 53 cms 50 cms
Calf 35 cms 28 cms
Loss of Muscle Power around (Rt) Hip, (Rt) Knee
by one Grade each and (Rt) Ankle by 3 Grades i.e.
20 x 0.3 x 5 = 30%
Mobility component is 30 + 19.5 (90-30)/90 =
43%
STABILITY COMPONENT:
1. Walking over plant surface - 5%
2. Walking over slope - 5%
3. Climbing stairs - 5%
4. Standing on affected leg - 5%
5. Squatting on floor - 10%
6. Sitting cross legged - 10%
7. Kneeling - 5%
Total = 45%
Total disability is = 45 + 43(90-145)/90 = 66%
12
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
I put the total disability of Pelvis (Rt) Lower limb
at 66% and that of his whole body at 33%
Patient is said to be SME in HGS Company and with
the said disabilities come in the way of his
working. He cannot carry out any physical or
manual work.
He needs surgeries for removal of implants at both
sites and correction of Foot drop , which would cost
around Rs.80,000/- in private set up.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. It is not disputed by the parties that the injured
claimant was working as a Claims Processing Executive in
HGS International Services Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the claimant did
not require to do any manual work but had a desk job.
Given this aspect, it could not be said that the injured
claimant was unable to carry out his avocation at all.
However, given the disability as well as the injury to his
right hip, which injury would definitely prevent the injured
claimant from sitting for long hours, as is required in his
avocation at his job, coupled with the evidence of the
Doctor, the whole body functional disability would be kept
at 30%. Further, as the injured claimant was aged about
24 years, multiplier of ‘18’ is adopted. Thus, the loss of
13
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
future income on account of permanent disability would be
re-calculated as follows:
Rs.11,000/- + 40% [4,400/-]= 15,400/-
15,400/-x12x’18’ x30% = 9,97,920/-
16. In addition, since the Doctor found that the injured
claimant also has to undergo surgeries for removal of
implants at both sites and correction of foot drop, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards
future medical expenses also needs to be enhanced by
Rs.20,000/-.
17. Further, on account of the injuries and surgeries, the
injured claimant must have been away from work at least
for a period of four months. Thus, considering the fact
that the notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month is
taken, as stated above, the compensation towards loss of
income during the laid-up period is awarded at
Rs.44,000/- [i.e.Rs.11,000/-x 4 months].
14
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
18. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid, the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
enhanced in the following manner:
Sl.
No.
Particulars Amount
(Rs.)
1 pain and suffering 50,000/-
2 Attendant charges, extra nutritious food 17,500/-
and conveyance expenses
3 Loss of income during laid up period 44,000/-
@ Rs.11,000/- for 4 months
4 Medical expenses 2,04,173/-
5 Loss of future income due to permanent
disability[i.e.11,000/-+40%=15,400/-
15,400/-x12x18x30%
9,97,920/-
6 Loss of future amenities and happiness 30,000/-
7 Future medical expenses 40,000/-
TOTAL compensation awarded 13,83,593/-
Less: 20% towards contributory 2,76,719/-
negligence of appellant/claimant
Total compensation entitled: 11,06,874/-
Less: compensation awarded by 3,77,500/-
Tribunal
Enhancement of compensation 7,29,374/-
19. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an
enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.7,29,374/- along
with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the
date of petition till realisation.
15
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
19.1 This Court is not inclined to interfere with the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum,
considering the permanent disability sustained by the
appellant/claimant.
20. Regarding the contributory negligence attributed by
the learned Tribunal to the appellant/claimant at 20%, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the
learned Tribunal and the same is retained.
21. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part ;
(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated
26.06.2018, passed by the learned Small Causes
and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Bengaluru
(SCCH-16) in MVC No.2960/2017 is modified,
enhancing the compensation by Rs.7,29,374/-
16
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56149
MFA No. 6006 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010400712019
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is
directed to pay the enhanced compensation with
interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal
within eight weeks from today.
(iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned
Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.
(v) All pending applications stand closed.
(vi) No order as to costs.
(vii) The Registry is directed to draw the
modified Award accordingly.
(viii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of
this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along
with its records.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
BMV*
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
17