SRI JEEVAN JAMES K A vs SAIZAR ENTERPRISES PVT LTD
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 5719 OF 2023
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI JEEVAN JAMES K A
S/O ARULAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT No. 96/1, IGNO SADAN
ST. JOSEPHS INIDAS H.S.
RD
3 CROSS LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NO. 17/2596, VIDHYANIKETAN
NIRMAL NAGAR, DHARWAD
HUBLI- DHARWAD CITY – 560 003.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA KUMAR R L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAIZAR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
TRANSPORT NAGAR CAMPUS,
DIMMA ROAD, MANGO
JAMSHEDPUR EAST SINGHABHUM,
ST
EAST SINGHBHU 1
JAHARKHAND – 831 018.
2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
RD RD
No. 217/A, 3 FLOOR, 3 MAIN
OUTER RING ROAD
KASTURINAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 043.
(REPTD. BY ITS MANAGER)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.10.2022
PASSED IN MVC No.4079/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
SHIVASHANKAR
ORDERS ON 31.08.2026, THIS DAY,
AMARANNAVAR J
, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;\
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded in the judgment
and award dated 01.10.2022 passed in MVC 4079/2020 by
the I Additional Judge, Court of Smart Causes and MACT,
Bangalore(SCCH-11).
2. The appellant/claimant made a claim petition
praying to award compensation for the injuries sustained
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 09.08.2015
for the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry
bearing Regn.No.NL-01-G-2779. The Tribunal after
recording the evidence of the parties, appreciating the
evidence assessed the compensation and awarded
compensation under various heads as under:
Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.)
01. Towards injury pain and suffering 35,000/-
02. Towards medical expenses 3,72,159/-
03. Towards food and extra
nourishment and medical
attendant
9,600/-
04. Towards conveyance 10,000/-
05. Towards loss of income during 20,000/-
treatment
06. Deprivation of future amenities 10,000/-
07. Future medical expenses 50,000/-
Total 5,06,759/-
3. The Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization
and directed respondent No.2/insurer to deposit the award
amount with interest before the Tribunal. The claimant
seeking enhancement of the compensation has filed the
present appeal.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer.
5. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that
the Doctors who have been examined as PW.2 to 4 have
clearly stated that the claimant has sustained disability to
the whole body and even inspite of the said evidence, the
Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of
future income due to disability. He placing reliance on the
following decisions would contend that the claimant is
entitled to compensation for loss of future income due to
disability:
•
2026 ACJ 109
(Soni Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and
others)
•
2014 AIR SCW 2535
(P.Dinesh Singh v.Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co.Ltd)
•
2026 ACJ 425
(Sandeep Rajendran v. A.Nazar and another)
•
MFA No.5242/2020 (Nagaraju T.A. vs.
Mallikarjuna)
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
6. He contends that the claimant was working as a
teacher in a school and due to the injuries sustained and
disability to the whole body, he cannot work effectively as
a teacher and affected his working as a teacher, therefore,
entitled to award of compensation under head loss of
future income due to disability. He also contends that
compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of
amenities, loss of income during laid-up period, attendant
and conveyance charges, future medical expenses, are on
lower side, considering the injuries/fracture sustained by
the claimant. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer
placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another
(AIR Online 2010 SC 125) , would contend that if there
is functional disability and if it has reduced the income of
the claimant, then only claimant is entitled to loss of
future income due to disability. In the case on hand, the
claimant was working as a Teacher and continued to work
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
as Teacher and therefore, his income has not been
reduced and he is getting the same income. Therefore,
the claimant is not entitled to loss of future income due to
disability. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
all heads is just proper and there are no grounds for
enhancement.
8. Having heard the learned counsel the Court has
perused the judgment, award and trial court records.
9. The accident occurred on 09.08.2015 and as on
the date of accident the claimant was aged 33 years.
Considering the said age of the claimant the multiplier to
be applied is ‘16’.
10. The claimant has sustained injuries to right upper
limb with open fracture olecramon and underwent surgery
in the form of a tension band wiring, debridement and skin
grafting and debridement of necrotic skin. Considering the
said injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards pain and suffering in a sum of Rs.35,000/- is
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and loss of amenities awarded in
a sum of Rs.10,000/- is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.
11. The claimant has been admitted in the hospital
for 25 days and considering the same he is entitled to
attendant, conveyance charges, food nourishment etc., in
a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.1,000 x 25 days) as against
attendant charges of Rs.9,600/- and conveyance charges
of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The claimant was working as a Teacher in Loyala
School and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. PW.5
has been examined to establish the said income. PW.5 is
the Treasurer of the Society which is running the said
school. As per evidence of PW.5, the salary of the claimant
is Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the
claimant is to be taken at Rs.12,000/- per month.
13. Considering the injuries sustained noted supra,
the claimant has to take rest atleast for two months and
therefore, entitled to loss of income during laid-up period
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
in a sum of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.12,000/- x 2 months) as
against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
14. PW.2-Doctor has stated that the claimant has to
undergo surgery for removal of implant and cost of the
same is around Rs.40,000/- and PW.3-Doctor has stated
that the claimant requires surgery to correct the elbow
contracture and also for removal of implant and estimated
the cost at Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering the said evidence,
the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards future
medical expenses. The said compensation awarded
towards future medical expenses by the Tribunal is on
lower side. Considering the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 –
Doctors, the claimant is entitled to future medical
expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal. The claimant is not entitled to interest on
future medical expenses.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
15. The Tribunal has rightly awarded medical
expenses of Rs.3,72,159/- based on the documents
produced by the claimant.
16. PW.2 - Doctor has stated that the claimant has
sustained 52% disability to the right upper limb and 26%
to the whole body. PW.3-Doctor has stated that the
claimant has sustained 34.66% disability and whole body
disability is 11.6%. Considering the said evidence of the
Doctors – PWs.2 and 3, the disability to the whole body is
to be taken at 24% (13% + 11%).
17. Even though the claimant has sustained
disability, the Tribunal has not awarded loss of future
income due to disability on the ground that the claimant
who was working as a Teacher continued to work as a
Teacher and getting the same income as he was getting
prior to the accident. In Soni Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court, considering the disability of claimant serving
in the Indian Army has observed as under:
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
“11. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of the
accident, the claimant-appellant was serving in the
Indian Army a profession which demands highest
standards of physical fitness, alertness, and
endurance. Any impairment or disability resulting
from the said accident is, therefore, not merely a
personal affliction but one that has a direct bearing
on his ability to effectively discharge his duties.
Such an impairment is likely to adversely affect his
efficiency, career prospects both in service or
thereafter, and overall service capability in a
profession where physical robustness is a
fundamental prerequisite, thereby justifying
compensation as was awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The mere fact that the claimant-appellant
continued in service or did not seek premature
retirement could not have been determinative of
the issue, as loss of earning capacity 'may subsist
not withstanding continuation in employment.
Likewise, loss of promotional prospects is required
to be assessed on reasonable probabilities having
regard to the nature of employment and extent of
disability, and does not require strict proof. The
High Court substantially reduced the compensation
on the ground that the amounts awarded were
excessive. Such an exercise amounts to re-
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
appreciation of evidence which is beyond the
permissible scope of appellate jurisdiction under the
Motor Vehicles Act.”
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dinesh Singh (supra)
has observed as under:
“10. We have considered the material placed
before us, particularly the evidence of the Doctor,
who stated that the appellant suffered 60%
disability of the total body, and in his cross-
examination denied the suggestion that the
appellant does not require any further treatment.
The fact that the appellant has resigned as Quality
Engineer from Hospet Steels Ltd and took up desk
job in Industrial Development Bank of India
because of his permanent disability, suffered by
him in the accident is not in dispute. Obviously,
because of the permanent disability suffered by
the appellant, who is an Engineer by profession,
cannot take up such profession, which requires
moving from one place to other place. Therefore,
the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant
has not suffered any financial loss because of
permanent disability having regard to the fact that
subsequently he took up employment in Industrial
Development Bank of India as Grade-B Officer,
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
cannot be sustained. Once the permanent
disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its
impact on the employment/profession of the
claimant, the compensation has to be awarded.
Since the disability suffered by the appellant,
which is fixed at 60% and which is permanent in
nature, impacted his employment and future
prospects, we are of the considered opinion that
the Tribunal has rightly determined the
compensation Rs.12,840/- x 12 x 17 =
Rs.26,19,360/- towards loss of future earnings,
and taking into consideration the 60% permanent
disability suffered by the appellant, awarded him
the actual compensation under the head ‘loss of
future earnings’ at Rs.15,71,616/- by rounding off
the same to Rs.15,72,000/-.”
19. In the said case the Engineer who sustained
disability has changed his job as a Quality Engineer from
Hospet Steels Limited and took up desk job in Industrial
Development Bank of India.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sandeep
Rajendran (supra) has observed as under:
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
“3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore had awarded compensation of
Rs.2,21,930. The High Court enhanced the same to
Rs.3,29,198. Nothing was awarded on account of
loss of earning capacity by the High Court taking
note of the fact that their was no loss of income to
the appellant as he was still carrying on his
profession and earning handsomely.
4. The fact remains that on account of functional
disability suffered by the appellant in a road
accident which the High Court also acknowledged to
the extend of 21 per cent, in our opinion, the work
of the appellant will certainly suffer. He may not be
able to earn, as much as he could have in case the
disability was not there. The job of an Architect
requires multiple duties to be discharged, which are
not limited to the office. There may be site visits
and climbing on buildings under construction.”
21. In the said case the claimant was an Architect
and considering the same the Tribunal has awarded loss of
future income due to disability.
22. In Nagaraju.T.A ., the Co-ordinate Bench has
considered disability to a person working with a Chartered
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
Accountant has awarded the loss of income due to
disability.
23. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), relied
upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether
there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of
such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal
should consider and decide with reference to the
evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether
it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is
expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the
effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning
of the entire body, that is the permanent disability
suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that
there is no permanent disability then there is no question
of proceeding further and determining the loss of future
earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there
is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its
extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of
permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent
disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.”
24. The claimant inspite of sustaining disability, he
has continued to work as a Teacher and getting the same
income as he was getting prior to the accident. There is no
evidence on record to indicate that the claimant is not
found suitable for discharging the duties of a Teacher due
to the disability sustained by him. The claimant was
getting the salary prior to the accident and the same
salary he is getting even after the accident. Therefore, he
is not entitled to loss of future income due to disability.
25. In Dr.Yashwant Dongre Vs. Salman Rasheed
and others (ILR 2015 KAR 164) , a Co-ordinate Bench,
has observed as under:
“15. In this case, the claimant has got disability to
the extent of 46%. The doctor has not spoken
about the disability with regard to the whole body.
The claimant has permanent disability and thus has
permanent diminution of his earning capacity, but
he has been continued in the same employment
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
without deduction of salary, the claimant is entitled
for compensation for his handicap in the labour
market. In many cases of comparatively not serious
injuries, though there is some permanent disability,
the disability has no immediate adverse effect on
his salary. He may be getting the pre-accident
salary. However, such a man is at a disadvantage
when compared with his co-workers in the labour
market. It may so happen that he continues to
work with difficulty and gets the same salary but if
there is reduction in the workforce by the
employers, this worker with disability is likely to be
sent off first.
16. It may happen in some cases, though the
claimant is in a position to work physically after the
accident as before, the after effects of the accident
may make it more difficult for him to find work or
to retain his work. There would be some degree of
physical handicap. In these cases, the Court may
have to add a suitable sum by way of damages
having regard to this aspect. In the instant case,
the claimant has got permanent disability to the
extent of 46%. The income of the claimant is
30,303/- per month. 1/3rd of 46% will be the
disability to the whole body. Accordingly, the
disability of the claimant to the whole body is 15%.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
The age of the claimant is 45 years and suitable
multiplier that has to be adopted in this case is 14.
The loss of income proportionate to the disability of
15% would be 4546/-. So due to the reduced
capacity of work, the claimant has lost income of
7,63,728/-(4546/-x 12 = 54552/-x 147,63,728/-).
Since the claimant is continuing in his employment,
he may not be entitled for compensation under the
head of reduced eligibility of employment. However,
applying the principle mentioned herein above, a
suitable sum has to be awarded by way of damages
having regard to his disability. 10% of reduced
earning capacity can be awarded as suitable sum in
respect of reduced eligibility of employment or
handicap in the employment market i.e.,
Rs.
77,000/-.”
26. In the case on hand, the claimant has sustained
disability at 24% to the whole body. The claimant has
permanent disability and thus, has a permanent
diminution of his earning capacity but he has been
continued in the same employment without reduction of
salary, the claimant is entitled for compensation for his
handicap in the labour market. In many cases of
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
comparatively not serious injuries, though there is some
permanent disability, the disability has no immediate
adverse effect on his salary. He may be getting the pre-
accident salary. However, such a man is at a disadvantage
when compared with his co-workers in the labour market.
It may so happen that he continues to work with difficulty
and gets the same salary. But if there is a reduction in the
workforce by the employers, this worker with a disability is
likely to be sent off first. Though the claimant is in a
position to work physically after accident as before, the
after effects of the accident may make it more difficult for
him to find work or to retain his work. There would be
some degree of physical handicap. In these cases, the
Court may have to add a suitable sum by way of damages
having regard to this aspect.
27. In the instant case, the claimant got a
permanent disability to the extent of 24%. The income of
the claimant is Rs.12,000/- per month. The age of the
claimant is 33 years and the suitable multiplier to be
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
adopted is ‘16’. The loss of income proportionate to the
disability is calculated as under:
Rs.12,000 x 12 x 16 x 24% = Rs.5,52,960/-
28. Since the claimant is continuing in his
employment, he may not be entitled to compensation
under the head of reduced eligibility of employment.
However, applying the principle mentioned in the decision
referred supra, a suitable sum has to be awarded by way
of damages having regard to his disability. 10% of
reduced earning capacity can be awarded as suitable sum
in respect of reduced eligibility of employment or handicap
in the employment market i.e. Rs.55,296/- (10% of
Rs.5,52,960/-). In view of the above, the claimant is
entitled to total compensation under various heads as
under:
Sl.No. Heads Amount in (Rs.)
01. Pain and suffering 50,000/-
02. Loss of amenities 40,000/-
03. Medical expenses 3,72,159/-
04. Attendant, conveyance charges, 25,000/-
food and nourishment etc
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
05. Loss of income during laid up 24,000/-
period
06. Future medical expenses 1,00,000/-
07. Reduced eligibility of
employment or handicap in
employment market
55,296/-
Total 6,66,455/-
29. Considering the above aspects, the claimant is
entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,66,455/- as against
Rs.5,06,759/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest.
Consequently, the claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,59,696/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization. Respondent
No.2/insurer is liable to pay the said enhanced
compensation with interest.
30. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
.
i) The appeal is allowed in part
ii) The appellant/claimant is entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,59,696/-
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61138
MFA No. 5719 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010424692023
with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization.
iii) Respondent No.2/insurer shall deposit the
enhanced compensation with interest before
the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
this day.
iv) Appellant/claimant is entitled to release of
entire enhanced compensation.
Digitally Signed By:
SHIVASHANKAR BASAPPA
AMARANNAVAR
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DKB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
Ct.sm