SRI RAMESH RAO vs H SIDDALINGA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3311 OF 2013(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAMESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O NARAYAN RAO,
RD
R/AT 3 CROSS,
LEELAVATHI EXTENTION,
MADDUR TOWN,
MANDYA - 571429.

…APPELLANT







(BY SRI BASAVARAJ P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . H SIDDALINGA
S/O K.MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2199,
GURUMAT RAOD, HOSAHALLY,
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.

2 . IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD


Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

NO.846, NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 023.
REP BY MANAGER.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/C/O DATED 18.06.2014 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013



THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.2.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.177/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT, MADDUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 27.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CAV JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 24.02.2012
passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Maddur in MVC
no.177/2010, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri Basavaraj P, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation. Brief facts leading to this appeal as stated are
that at 1:45 pm on 09.10.2009, when claimant was riding
motorcycle no.KA-11/K6410 towards Mandya along with
another, rider of another motorcycle no.KA-11-R-1651 rode it
in rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant’s

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013



motorcycle. In accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries
and despite treatment at General Hospital, Maddur, NIMHANS,
Bengaluru, KIMS and DG Hospital, Bengaluru, he did not
recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Claiming
compensation, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV Act ) against owner and insurer
of offending motorcycle.

3. On appearance, only insurer opposed claim petition
by filing objections urging various grounds. Age, income and
loss of earning capacity of claimant were denied as also
violation of terms and conditions of policy resulting in absolving
liability. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
ISSUES :
1. Whether petitioner proves that accident was solely
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle and he sustained injuries as
alleged?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what order or award?


4. Claimant deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1
to P22. Dr.HS Suresh and Dr.JN Sridharmurthy deposed as

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013



CWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.C1 to C8. Respondents did
not lead evidence.


5. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issue no.2 by assessing compensation of
Rs.5,58,016/- and holding respondents no.1 and 2 liable to pay
same with interest at 6% p.a. Dissatisfied with inadequate
compensation, appeal was filed.


6. It was submitted that as on date of accident,
claimant was 37 year old Class-I Contractor earning
Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. To substantiate same,
he had produced Contractor’s licence renewed upto 2015 as
Ex.P19. To substantiate income, claimant produced Income Tax
Returns (ITRs) as Exs.P52, which showed substantial income.
He also produced Work Done Certificate marked as Ex.P51
indicating value of total works carried out between years 2008
and 2010 at nearly Rs.30 Lakhs. Under above circumstances,
assessment of monthly income at Rs.5,000/- was grossly
inadequate.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013




7. It was further submitted, claimant sustained
fracture of left temporal region and also nose which caused
leakage of water from brain through nose. Despite repeated
surgeries, such leakage could not be stopped totally. Though as
per assessment of disability by CW.1, claimant sustained partial
physical disability at 15% to whole body, impact of disability on
earning capacity was much higher.


8. It was further submitted, even after award and
during pendency of this appeal, claimant underwent two more
surgeries involving huge medical expenses. It was submitted
that I.A.no.1/2020 was filed for production of medical bills for
total of Rs.8,20,194/-. Application was allowed on 24.02.2021
and in additional evidence recorded, medical bills for said sum
were got marked as Exs.P23 to P41. Similarly, I.As.no.1/2021
and 1/2023 filed for production of ITRs and further medical bills
were allowed on 03.04.2025 and Exs.P42 to P54 – medical bills
for total of Rs.1,45,907/- were marked. In view of above,
learned counsel sought for award of Rs.9,66,101/- towards
additional medical bills. It was further submitted, since claimant
sustained head injury and underwent prolonged treatment

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013



involving multiple surgeries, award of Rs.30,000/- only towards
pain and suffering was not justified and sought enhancement.
Learned counsel prayed for enhancement of compensation
towards loss of income during laid-up period also.


9. Further, as CW.1 stated about possibility of
claimant contracting infection due to leakage of water from
brain through nose, claimant was required to undergo periodic
check-ups and treatment. For said purposes, sought for award
of appropriate amount towards future medical expenses. It was
lastly submitted, even award of Rs.10,000/- towards
attendance etc. and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities was
also contended to be on lower side and sought enhancement.


10. On other hand, Sri AN Krishnaswamy, learned
counsel for insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, records
produced by claimant himself indicated that disability sustained
had not affected his avocation or income. Contractor licence
was renewed beyond date of accident and ITR for period after
accident showed increase in income. Insofar as compensation
awarded under other heads, Tribunal had assessed just
compensation leaving no scope for enhancement.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013





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


12. From above, only point for consideration would be:
“Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?”


13. At outset, occurrence of accident due to
involvement of insured vehicle and claimant sustaining physical
disability/loss of earning capacity are not in dispute. Appeal is
only for enhancement of compensation.


14. Insofar as medical expenses, Tribunal granted
Rs.3,33,016/- against bills produced covering treatment taken
till recording of evidence. For subsequent medical expenses,
claimant led additional evidence by further examination of
Dr.HS Suresh and another and got marked further medical bills
as Exs.P23 to P55 totaling to Rs.9,66,101/-. Nothing contrary is
elicited in cross-examination so as to disbelieve said expense.
Hence, claimant would be entitled to Rs.9,66,101/- towards
additional medical expenses.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013




15. Insofar as future medical expenses, CW.1 stated
that claimant was prone to seizures and requires continuous
medication. In cross examination, he stated that claimant will
not recover during his lifetime. About treatment required,
Exs.P24 to P32, P43, P44, P53 – Discharge summaries along
with Ex.P33 to P40, P42, P45, P54 and P55 – Medical/Hospital
bills reflect claimant availing treatment of claimant being
spread over from year 2012 upto 2021. CW.1 further stated
that due to injuries sustained in accident, claimant suffered
from fits and seizures requiring lifelong medication. But details
of expenses involved for same are not furnished. In absence,
referring to amount of Rs.12,00,000/- being spent on
treatment from year 2012 till 2025 it would be appropriate to
award a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future
medical expenses.


16. Insofar as income, though claimant stated it to be
Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. ITRs for years 2005-
06 to 2009-10 collectively marked as Exs.P52 indicate gross
income for year 2005-06 was Rs.1,04,730/-, for year 2006-07
was Rs.2,12,837/-, for year 2007-08 was Rs.2,93,603/-, for

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013



year 2008-09 was Rs.1,48,649/- and for year 2009-10 was
Rs.3,83,456/-.


17. But, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rashmirekha
Tripathy and Anr. v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims),
Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors. reported in
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1256 , held, when it comes to self-
employed / individuals with their own business, average of
income specified in ITRs of previous three years is to be taken.
Since accident in question occurred in year 2009, ITRs of years
2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010, while gross
income for respective years are Rs.2,12,837/-, Rs.2,93,608/-,
Rs.1,48,649/- and Rs.3,83,456/-. But ITR covering period of
accident was filed on 01.03.2010 i.e. after date of accident.
Thus, following ratio in Rashmirekha 's case (supra) and
excluding ITR of year 2009-2010, average of ITRs of years
2006-07 to 2008-09 would be Rs.2,18,365/-, and monthly
income would be Rs.18,197/-. During said years, income in
excess of Rs.1,00,000/- was taxable at 10% and which requires
to be deducted from net income which would be Rs.16,377/-.
Same is to be considered as monthly income of claimant.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013





18. Medical evidence on record would indicate claimant
sustaining permanent physical disability due to accidental
injuries at 15% to whole body. But taking note of fact that his
occupation is contractor and licence is renewed even after date
of accident coupled with fact that he sustained head injury
causing leakage of water from brain through nose and claimant
suffering fits and seizures (which are not stated to be regular),
assessment of functional disability by tribunal at 15% is found
adequate, just and proper. Applying multiplier of '15'
corresponding to his age at 37 years, compensation towards
future loss of income would be:
Rs.16,377/- x 15% x 12 x 15 = Rs.4,42,179/- .


19. Insofar as pain and suffering, records do indicate
that claimant sustained fracture of temporal bone with brain
injury resulting in leakage of water from brain through nose.
They also disclose that claimant was diagnosed for same. But,
due to large opening, treatment as well as correctional
surgeries failed to stop it completely. Thus, claimant had to
suffer pain of fluid leaking from nose continuously. Under such
circumstance, award of only Rs.30,000/- towards pain and

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013



suffering would be grossly inadequate. It is found appropriate
to enhance it to Rs.2,00,000/-.


20. For aforesaid reason, award of Rs.20,000/- only
towards loss of amenities considering his age at 37 years and
loss of sense of smell, it would be grossly inadequate. It is
found appropriate to enhance it to Rs.1,00,000/- .


21. Tribunal assessed period of lay-off as six months.
Consequently, compensation towards loss of income during
treatment would be Rs.16,377/- X 6 = Rs.98,262/- .


22. Considering in-patient treatment period of 31 days
prior to award and 82 days as per additional evidence, award of
Rs.10,000/- only would be grossly inadequate. It is found
appropriate to consider expenses at around Rs.500/- per day
and enhance it to Rs.60,000/- . Thus, total compensation
would be Rs.19,66,542/- . Point for consideration is answered
partly in affirmative. Hence, following:
ORDER

i) Appeal is allowed in part , judgment and
award dated 24.02.2012 passed by Tribunal in
MVC no.177/2010 is modified .

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61599
MFA No. 3311 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010198622013





ii) Claimant is held entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.19,66,542/- as against
Rs.5,58,016/- awarded by Tribunal.


iii) Same shall carry interest at rate of 6% per
annum from date of claim petition till deposit,
excluding period of 300 days being delay in
filing this appeal.

iv) Insurer is directed to deposit entire enhanced
compensation with interest before Tribunal
within six weeks.


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

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE



AV,GRD,YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46