SRI DHIRAJ vs SRI MAHUKAR S KUNDAR

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR
R






IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4821 OF 2024 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:


SRI DHIRAJ
S/O GOVINDA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT MARATHOORU,
HOSAMANE,
MOLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201

SINCE APPELLANT IS NOT
IN SOUND MIND DUE TO MAJOR
HEAD INJURY HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS
GUARDIAN MOTHER
SMT. RATHNA MOGERTHI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O GOVINDA NAIK,
R/AT: KALYANABETTU,
MOLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)










Digitally signed
by
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR
DESAI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

AND:

1.
SRI MAHUKAR S KUNDAR
S/O SUDHAKAR S KUNDAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT H.NO. 117

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


MADHU NIVAS, NADUHITHLU,
UPPINAKOTE, VARAMBALLI VILLAGE,
BRAHMAVARA,
UDUPI TALUK AND DIST.-576 213.

2. THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE:
CITY TRADE CENTRE,
ST
1 FLOOR, OPP. CITY HOSPITAL,
KADRI, MANGALORE-575 003
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.714/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
17.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


CAV JUDGMENT

Common Award is passed in MVC Nos.713 of 2018 and
714 of 2018 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Additional
MACT, Kundapura on 20.07.2022.

2. On 06.04.2018, while Ganesh Poojary, petitioner in
MVC No.713 of 2018 was proceeding on his motor cycle
bearing No.KA-20-EN-5465 along with Dhiraj, pillion Rider, who
was petitioner in MVC No.714 of 2018, and when they reached
near Matapadi Bridge, Udupi Taluk, auto rickshaw bearing
No.KA-20-D-1232 belonging to the first respondent came in a
rash and negligent manner in front of the motorcycle, suddenly
took a U-turn to the right side without giving any signal and
dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioners fell down
and sustained injuries. They filed a claim application claiming
compensation of Rs.9,10,000/- and Rs.19,25,000/- respectively
with interest. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on
record, granted the compensation of Rs.4,96,119/- and
Rs.10,36,950/- respectively with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


3. This appeal is filed by the petitioner-claimant against
the judgment and award of the Tribunal passed in MVC No.714
of 2018 mainly contending that he was a painter and earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, he could not earn and he lost his income. He was bed
ridden and not in sound state of mind. The Tribunal has taken
his income as Rs.12,500/- per month, which is on lower side
and it has also granted meagre amount under the other heads.
It is contended that C.W.1-Neurosurgeon has assessed 45% as
the cognitive disability and there is no chance of improvement.
But, the Tribunal has taken only 15% disability. Therefore,
reasonable functional disability is to be assessed by the court.
It is also contended that he was aged 20 years at the time of
accident and he has lost his marriage prospects. P.W.1-mother
of the petitioner stated that she was taking care of the
petitioner after the accident and therefore, attendant charges is
required to be awarded by applying the multiplier method.
Future marriage prospects is not granted. Therefore, requested
for enhancement of the compensation.

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

5. As per Ex.P.3-Wound Certificate, the petitioner has
sustained the following injuries:
1. Laceration 1x1 cm x bone deep over the
head on left side, 4 cm above the left mastoid
process,
2. Contusion, bluish, 2x2 cm over the head on
left side, 5 cm above the left mastoid process,
3. Abrasion, reddish, 3x4 cm over front of the
left knee joint,
4. Multiple abrasions, reddish over an area of
4x3 cm over back of right hand, varying in sizes
from 0.5x1 cm to 0.5x0.5 cm, 6 cm below the right
wrist.
5. Multiple abrasions, reddish was present over
back of left hand, over an area of 2x2 cms, varying
in sizes from 0.5x0.5 cm to 0.5x0.3 cm starting from
the base of left middle finger.
6. Left sided raccoon eye noted.

Out of the said injuries, injury Nos.1, 2 and 6 are grievous in
nature.

6. The petitioner examined doctor as C.W.1 and he has
stated that the petitioner sustained head injury and multiple

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


lacerations and contusions on various parts of his body. Thus,
the Tribunal has taken the disability as 15%. The date of birth
of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.07.1998 as per Adhaar
Card, and the accident occurred in the year 2018, as such, his
age is to be considered as 20 years as on the date of accident
and the relevant multiplier is 18. Though, the petitioner has
stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not
filed any income proof. As the accident occurred in the year
2018, the Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as
Rs.12,500/- per month and also added 40% towards future
prospects it needs no interference.

7. Learned counsel or the petitioner-claimant stated that
doctor assessed the cognitive disability as 45% and also issued
disability certificate to that effect and stated that there is no
chance of recovery and there is no chance of improvement.
Even the mother of the petitioner represented him and as he
was not in a sound state of mind. She filed claim petition as a
natural guardian. In the disability certificate, it is clearly stated
that the petitioner sustained cognitive disability of 45%. In
this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KAJAL VS.
JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS reported in (2020)4 SCC
413 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court Head notes A,E and F
and at paragraphs 5, 11 and 15 has held as follows:

E. XXX - Multiplier system, held, should be
followed not only for compensation for loss
of income but also for attendant charges,
etc. Multiplier system is the most optimal as

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


it factors in inflation rate, rate of interest,
longevity and also uncertainties of life, to
ensure award of "Just compensation"

F. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-S. 166 Permanent
total disability Just compensation Scope of
Non-pecuniary damages - Pain, suffering,
loss of amenities High Court awarded only
Rs 3,00,000 - Supreme Court having held in
similar cases that it should be at least Rs
6,00,000, for disability more than 90% In
present case, in addition to 100% physical
disability, young girl suffering from severe
incontinence, severe hysteria and above all
left with a brain of a nine-month-old child-In
present case, even after taking a very
conservative view of matter an amount
payable for pain and suffering should be at
least Rs 15,00,000

XXXX Courts or Tribunals in a case of 100%
disability, especially mental disability also,
should take eliberal view awarding
compensation - This child will remain
bedridden for life Girl who will physically
become a woman but witt mentally remain a
9-month-old child, would miss out on
playing with friends Cannot communicate;
cannot enjoy pleasures of life; cannot even
be amused by watching cartoons or films;
will miss out the fun of childhood,
excitement of youth: pleasures of a marital
life and motherhood, let alone grandchildren
- A vegetable existence

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


5. The principles with regard to determination of
just compensation contemplated under the Act
are well settled. The injuries cause deprivation
to the body which entitles the claimant to claim
damages. The damages may vary according to
the gravity of the injuries sustained by the
claimant in an accident. On account of the
injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential
losses such as:
(i) loss of earning;
(ii) expenses on treatment which may include
medical expenses, transportation, special diet,
attendant charges, etc.,
(iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by
loss of a particular part of the body, and
(iv) loss of future earning capacity.
Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees
and paise.
6. It is impossible to equate human suffering
and personal deprivation with money. However,
this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to
do. The court has to make a judicious attempt
to award damages, so as to compensate the
claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On
the one hand, the compensation should not be
assessed very conservatively, but on the other
hand, the compensation should also not be
assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it
a bounty to the claimant. The court while
assessing the compensation should have regard
to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused
by such deprivation. Such compensation is what
is termed as just compensation. The
compensation or damages assessed for personal
injuries should be substantial to compensate the

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


injured for the deprivation suffered by the
injured throughout his/her life. They should not
be just token damages.
11. XXX In cases of grave injury, where the
body is wrecked or the brain destroyed, it is
very difficult to assess a fair compensation in
money, so difficult that the award must
basically be a conventional figure, derived from
experience or from awards in comparable cases.
Secondly, uniformity : There should be some
measure of uniformity in awards so that similar
decisions are given in similar cases; otherwise
there will be great dissatisfaction in the
community, and much criticism of the
administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability :
Parties should be able to predict with some
measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to
be awarded in a particular case, for by this
means cases can be settled peaceably and not
brought to court, a thing very much to the
public good.”
15. XXX
“9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of
compensation payable to a victim of an
accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special
damages. Pecuniary damages are those which
the victim has actually incurred and which are
capable of being calculated in terms of money;
whereas non-pecuniary damages are those
which are incapable of being assessed by
arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate
two concepts pecuniary damages may include
expenses incurred by the claimant : (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to
the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far
as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they
may include : (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already
suffered or likely to be suffered in the future;
(ii) damages to compensate for the loss of

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant
may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii)
damages for loss of expectation of life i.e. on
account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv)
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life.”
22. The attendant charges have been awarded
by the High Court @ Rs 2500 per month for 44
years, which works out to Rs 13,20.000/-.
Unfortunately, this system is not a proper
system. Multiplier system is used to balance out
various factors. When compensation is awarded
in lump sum, various factors are taken into
consideration. When compensation is paid in
lump sum, this Court has always followed the
multiplier system. The multiplier system should
be followed not only for determining the
compensation on account of loss of income but
also for determining the attendant charges, etc.
This system was recognised by this Court in
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami.
The multiplier system factors in the inflation
rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump
sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and
also other issues such as the uncertainties of
life. Out of all the various alternative methods,
the multiplier method has been recognised as
the most realistic and reasonable method. It
ensures better justice between the parties and
thus results in award of "just compensation"
within the meaning of the Act.”

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


8. The Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of SRI CHANDRA MOGAVEERA Vs.
SRI GURURAJ POOJARY AND OTHERS decided in MFA
No.7065 of 2016 dated 11.01.2023, in which it was held that
when petitioner sustained head injury and suffered 40% of
physical disability, he was considered to have 100% of physical
disability. Therefore, the learned counsel requested this Court
to consider disability of the petitioner as 100%. Therefore, this
Court finds it just and reasonable to assess functional disability
as 100%. If the disability is more than 20%, petitioner is entitled for
future prospects as per the judgment in the case of New India
Assurance Company Limited Vs. Abdul, son of Mehaboob
Tahasildar and Others (M.F.A. No.103807/2016 c/w. M.F.A.
No.103835/2016 decided on 27.05.2022). As the petitioner is
aged 20 years, entitled for 40% towards future prospects.
Thus, the loss of future running capacity comes to
Rs.37,80,000/- (12,500 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 100%). Petitioner
also incurred Rs.2,59,950/- towards medical expenses as per
Exs.P9 to P56. Tribunal has already granted said amount and it
is confirmed.

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


9. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital for a
period of 21 days. Considering the nature of injuries, the
period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, the Tribunal
has already granted the reasonable amounts under the other
heads and they are confirmed and it needs no interference.
However, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation
towards the loss of income during laid up period as the
disability is assessed by this Court as 100%.

10. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has stated that the was aged 20 years at the time of
accident and he lost prospects of marriage. Therefore this Court
finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
towards marriage prospects.

11. Further, the petitioner has claimed that he is entitled
for attendant charges by applying the multiplier method and he
has to file a document to show that he availed the services of
the attendant. His mother was taking care of him throughout.
Therefore, he is not entitled for attendant charges as claimed
by him.

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


12. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation of Rs.44,99,950/- with interest at 6% per
annum as against Rs.10,36,950/- awarded by the Tribunal.

13. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal
is modified as under:

14. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation
of Rs.44,99,950/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization.

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:23236
MFA No. 4821 of 2024

HC-KAR


(iii) The respondent insurance company has already
deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore,
they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
Rs.34,63,000/- with interest at 6% per annum within one
month from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, the mother of the petitioner,
natural guardian, is permitted to withdraw the entire amount
along with the interest accrued on it.




Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE



CS
CT:NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83