SRI MURULI vs SRI. DHARMENDRA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8149 OF 2014(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI MURULI
S/O SWAMYGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O PATTASOMANAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK- 572101
…APPELLANT





(BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. SRI DHARMENDRA
S/O JOGIGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
R/O PATTASOMANAHALLY VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 572 101.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NEELAGIRI ROAD
OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
MYSORE - 570 020.
…RESPONDENTS


Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

[BY SMT.H.C.LOKESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPERESENTED]

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.8.2014 PASSED IN MVC

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014


NO.559/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDE, JMFC,
PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 26.08.2014
passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC
no.559/2009, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri BL Sanjeev, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation.


3. Brief facts leading to this appeal were that at 08:30
p.m. on 16.05.2009, when claimant was riding motorcycle
no.KA-09-E-1201 with a pillion rider from Harohalli towards
Pandavapura, driver of Car no.KA-05-M-5289 drove it in rash
and negligent manner and dashed it against claimant's
motorcycle causing accident. Despite treatment at Government
Hospital, Pandavapura and later at Mission Hospital, Mysuru, he
did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014


Claiming compensation, he filed claim petition under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV Act ) against owner and
insurer of Car.


4. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear and
was placed ex-parte . Only insurer opposed claim petition on all
grounds. Even pillion rider was also injured and separate claim
petition was filed. Since both arose out of same accident, they
were claimed together.


5. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
1. Whether petitioner proves that on 16.05.2009
at about 8.30 PM when the petitioner was
going in Yamaha Motor Cycle No.KA-09-E-1201
as pillion rider along with one Murali from
Harohalli to Pandavapura near TAPMCS
choultry Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-05-
M-5289 came from Pandavapura in rash and
negligent manner and dashed to petitioner's
motor cycle due to which petitioner sustained
grievous injuries?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation
as claimed? If so, from whom, and to what
extent?

3. What order or award?


6. Claimant examined himself and Dr.K Ravindranath
as PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P83. Respondents
did not lead any rebuttal evidence.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014



7. On consideration, Tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by
its driver and claimant sustained disability and being entitled
for compensation of Rs.2,07,469/- from insurer with interest at
6% per annum from date of claim petition till its deposit.
Dissatisfied thereby, this appeal was filed.


8. It was submitted that as on date of accident,
claimant was 29 years of age, working as a skilled labourer in
Jaggery producing unit and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. As
per medical and treatment records, claimant had sustained
fracture of both bones of left hand i.e., radius and ulna and
commuted fracture of middle left tibia and fibula. PW.2 -
Doctor, who examined claimant had deposed about implants
and need for one more surgery for removal and assessed cost
to be Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and Tribunal erred in not
awarding same. It was submitted that even an award of
Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards
food and other incidental expenses for 13 days in-patient
treatment, Rs.34,869/- towards medical expenses, granting
inadequate compensation towards loss of income during laid-up

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014


period and Rs.30,000/- only towards loss of amenities. It was
submitted that Tribunal considered notional income of claimant
at Rs.4,500/- per month and assessing loss of earning capacity
at 6%, awarded inadequate compensation towards future loss
of income. On above grounds, sought for allowing appeal.


9. On other hand, Smt.HC Lokeshwari, learned counsel
appearing for Sri A. Ravishankar, advocate for respondent no.2
- insurer would oppose appeal. It was submitted, Tribunal
based on material on record, awarded just compensation and
same did not called for modification.


10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.


11. From above and only point for consideration is:
"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement
of compensation as prayed?"

Same is answered in affirmative for following reasons:


12. Occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle and
claimant being entitled for compensation are not in dispute.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014



13. Claimant stated that he was a skilled labour in
Jaggery producing unit and was being paid Rs.7,500/- per
month. To substantiate income, he did not produce any
material. Therefore, Tribunal would be justified in assessing
monthly income on notional basis. But notional income for year
2009 being Rs.5,000/- per month and same ought to be
considered. While assessing compensation, Tribunal has
considered loss of earning capacity at 6% and multiplier
applicable would be '17'. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport
Corporation Limited reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 601 ,
future prospects have to be added to monthly income even in
personal injury cases. Considering fact that claimant was 29
years of age, future prospects at 40% has to be added. Thus,
future loss of income would be Rs.85,680/- [(Rs.5,000/- +
40%) X 12 X 17 X 6%].


14. Tribunal assessed Rs.60,000/- towards pain and
suffering, which appears to be justified and hence, no
enhancement. Claimant has taken treatment for 13 days,
award of Rs.15,000/- towards food and other incidental

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014


expenses appears just and appropriate. Hence, no
enhancement. Though while awarding Rs.34,869/- towards
medical expenses, Tribunal has denied various bills. Same is by
assigning reasons and thorough examination of record to avoid
duplication of amount covered under advance receipts, etc. In
view of reimbursement, there is no enhancement. Normally
fracture take about three months to heal. Since claimant
sustained fractures of both hand and leg, period of laid-up is
considered as four months and at Rs.5,000/-, claimant would
be entitled for Rs.20,000/- . PW.2 - Doctor has stated about
need for one more surgery for removal of implants. Hence, it
would be appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards future
medical expenses. Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards
loss of amenities. Considering age and fractures sustained,
award to same appears just. Hence, no enhancement. Thus,
claimant would be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.2,65,549/- as against Rs.2,07,469/- awarded by Tribunal.


15. Consequently, following:
ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed ;

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58448
MFA No. 8149 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010448962014



ii) Judgment and award dated
26.08.2014 passed by Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura in MVC
no.559/2009 is modified;


iii) Claimant is held entitled for re-
assessed compensation of
Rs.2,65,549/- as against
Rs.2,07,469/- awarded by Tribunal.
Same shall carry interest at 6% per
annum from date of claim petition
till deposit.


iv) Respondent no.2-insurer is directed
to deposit total compensation
before Tribunal within six weeks.


v) On deposit, entire compensation is
ordered to be released in favour of
claimant.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE



AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17