APPURAO vs THE MANAGER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016




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. 627 OF 2016 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:


APPURAO
S/O JAGANNATHARAO,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ST ND
R/AT NO.41, 1 FLOOR, 2 CROSS,
NAIDU BUILDING, RAJU COLONY,
YAMALUR, BANGALORE.

…APPELLANT





(BY SRI K.M.SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHAKARA K.L., ADVOCATE)


AND:


1. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 007.

2. RAGHUPATHY GOWDA
S/O D.RAMAGOWDA,
DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

Digitally signed by
ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI K SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/C/O DATED 18.03.2016 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016


THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.334/2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, KOLAR ITINERATING AT MULBAGAL,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, 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 15.09.2015 by II
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar, in MVC no.334/2013,
this appeal is filed.


2. Sri KM Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for
Sri Prabhakara KL., advocate for appellant submitted that
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation.
Brief facts leading to this appeal were that at 1:40 p.m. on
30.11.2012, claimant was riding motorcycle no.KA-06-Q-2665
on KGF - Mulbagal road. Near Chitteri village gate, driver of Bus
no.KA-07-7817 drove it in rash and negligent manner and
dashed against claimant's motor cycle. Despite treatment at
Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, he did not recover fully and
sustained permanent disability. Therefore, filed MVC

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016


no.334/2013 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act of 1988
( MVA ).


3. On service of notice, respondent no.2 - owner of
Bus remained absent. He was placed ex-parte. Only insurer
filed objections denying claim averments and alleging Police
filed false Charge Sheet against Bus driver and accident
occurred due to negligence of claimant and praying for
dismissal of claim petition.


4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following:
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident
occurred on 30.11.2012 at 1.40 p.m. at Chitteri
village, gate, Mulbagal taluk, Kolar District is due to
rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing
no.KA-07/7817 and he sustained grievous injuries
in the accident?
st
2. Whether the 1 respondent proves that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the
petitioner himself?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, what extent and from whom?
4. What award or order?

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016



5. Claimant examined himself as PW-1, Dr.Krishna
Prasad as PW-2 and Prosthetist as PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1
to P38. Respondents did not lead oral evidence but got marked
copy of insurance policy with consent as Ex.R1.


6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issue no.2 in negative, issue no.3 in partly
affirmative and issue no.4 by awarding compensation of
Rs.4,10,776/- with interest at 6% per annum against insurer.
Aggrieved thereby, this appeal was filed.


7. It was submitted as on date of accident claimant
was 23 years old Police Constable earning Rs.13,200/- per
month sustained grievous injuries due to which his right leg
was amputated above knee causing permanent physical
disability of 33% as per PW.2. Despite same, Tribunal erred in
taking monthly income at only Rs.7,000/- and awarded
inadequate compensation. Relying on Division Bench decision of
this Court in Vinutha GR v. Dalbeer Singh and Anr.
[ 2026:KHC:41811-DB ] it was submitted, future prospects in
career were not considered. Even compensation of Rs.40,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,25,936/- towards medical

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016


expenses, Rs.5,600/- towards incidental expenses, Rs.7,000/-
towards loss of income during period of treatment,
Rs.1,16,640/- towards future loss of income and Rs.15,600/-
towards conveyance were on lower side and sought for
enhancement.


8. On other hand, Sri K Suresh, learned counsel for
respondent no.1 - insurer opposed appeal, contending that
Tribunal erred in awarding compensation towards loss of future
income and claimant failed to produce documents to show that
he was denied promotions. Therefore, sought dismissal of
appeal.


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


10. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement, point arising for consideration is:
Whether assessment of compensation by Tribunal
calls for modification?



11. Occurrence of accident on 30.11.2012 due to rash
and negligent driving by Bus driver, claimant sustaining
injury/permanent disability are not in dispute. Insofar as

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016


monthly income, Tribunal disbelieved claimant working as
Police Constable with salary of Rs.13,200/- per month, for want
of salary certificate. But, entire prosecution papers refer to
claimant as Police Constable. Though same was stated in claim
petition as well as in deposition, there is no cross examination
on same. When employment is claimed in Government Post,
tribunal ought not to have disbelieved him. Therefore,
Rs.13,200/- is held as monthly income of claimant.


12. When admittedly claimant continued in employment
despite sustaining permanent physical disability, he would not
be entitled for compensation towards future loss of income. He
would instead be entitled for higher compensation towards loss
of amenities as disability sustained would affect his
life/activities other than job. Consequently, award of
Rs.1,16,640/- towards future loss of income would require to
be set aside. As no compensation is awarded towards loss of
amenities, considering fact that claimant sustained amputation
of right leg above knee, he is awarded Rs.3,00,000/- . On
same reasoning, compensation awarded towards pain and

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016


suffering at Rs.40,000/- only would be grossly inadequate and
therefore enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- .



13. Considering bills produced, Tribunal granted
Rs.2,25,936/- in full reimbursement thereof leaving no scope
for enhancement. Considering in-patient treatment period of 14
days, award of Rs.5,600/- towards incidental expenses and
Rs.15,600/- towards conveyance expenses would appear just
and proper. Considering fact that claimant sustained
amputation of right lower limb and would have spent sufficient
time for recuperation, he would be entitled for loss of income
during said period. It is found appropriate to consider four
months as layoff. Consequently, he would be entitled to
Rs.52,800/- (Rs.13,200/- x 4). Thus, total compensation
would be enhanced to Rs.8,99,936/- rounded off to
Rs.9,00,000 .


14. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part .

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58467
MFA No. 627 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010518972016


(ii) Judgment and award dated 15.09.2015
by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar, in
MVC no.334/2013 is modified.
(iii) Compensation is re-assessed from
Rs.4,10,776/- to Rs.9,00,000/- with 6% p.a. from
date of claim petition till deposit.
(iv) Enhanced compensation to be deposited
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

YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24