SRI P S NAZEER @ NAZAR vs THE GENERAL MANAGER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58009
MFA No. 5568 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010281552013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5568 OF 2013(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI P S NAZEER @ NAZAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O P K SINUDDEEN
R/A VISTAR, DODDAGUBBI POST
VIA BAGALUR, BANGALORE - 560 149.

…APPELLANT




(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA E.P., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. GAYATHRI RAVISHANKAR AND
SRI RAVISHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATES)



AND:

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
RD
2028, HIG 3 HOUSE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 004.

2. SRI M SHANKAR
S/O MUNIRAJU
NO.15, BELATHUR COLONY
KADUGOD POST, NEAR MANOJ STORES
BANGALORE - 560 067.

…RESPONDENTS



Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI B S UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/C/O DATED 19.11.2020 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/WS)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 4.2.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5904/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58009
MFA No. 5568 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010281552013


CAUSES JUDGE, 41ST ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, 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 04.02.2013
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-
17) (' Tribunal ') in MVC no.5904/2011, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri Raghavendra E.P., learned counsel appearing for
Sri Ravishankar S.S., advocate for appellant submitted that
appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation.
Brief facts leading to this appeal were that at 9:50 a.m. on
26.08.2011 when claimant was riding motorcycle no.KA-03/EU-
4764 on Kothanur main road, rider of motorcycle no.KA-53/L-
743 ( offending vehicle ) rode it in rash and negligent manner
and it dashed against claimant's motorcycle. In accident,
claimant sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at
Avhieta Hospital and Sathya Hospital, Bangalore, did not
recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58009
MFA No. 5568 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010281552013


he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ( MVA ) against insurer and owner of offending vehicle.


3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence.


4. Claimant along with Dr.Purushotham K., deposed as
PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Respondents did
not lead evidence.


5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of offending vehicle and
claimant was entitled for compensation of Rs.87,000/- with
interest at 8% per annum. And appeal was by dissatisfied
claimant.


6. It was submitted, claimant was 38 years old
working as Trainee in Educational Institute, earning
Rs.17,000/- per month, sustained communited fracture of both
bones of right leg requiring closed reduction and IMIL nailing
under SA. There was shortening of right lower limb. PW.2
assessed physical disability at 45% to right lower limb and 15%
to whole body. He also deposed about need for another surgery

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58009
MFA No. 5568 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010281552013


for removal of implants. Despite same, Tribunal erred in taking
his monthly income at only Rs.4,000/- and awarded inadequate
compensation. It was submitted that even compensation of
Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards
future medical expenses and Rs.12,000/- loss earning during
period of treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance,
attendant and nourishing food and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
amenities were on lower side and sought enhancement.


7. Sri B.S. Umesh, learned counsel for respondent
no.1 - insurer while opposing appeal for enhancement pointed
out that rate of interest awarded was excessive and therefore,
rate of interest on enhanced compensation be reduced to 6%.


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


9. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement, point arising for consideration is:
Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement

of compensation?

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58009
MFA No. 5568 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010281552013



10. At out set, occurrence of accident due to negligent
riding of offending vehicle, claimant sustaining injuries and
consequent loss of earning capacity and being entitled for
compensation are not in dispute and appeal is for enhancement
of compensation. Though claimant stated that he was 38 years
of age, working as Teaching Assistant in Educational Institution
and earning Rs.17,000/- per month by relying on Ex.P9,
Tribunal disbelieved it for failure to examine its author and
failure to produce educational qualification documents. Said
reasoning in a claim petition under MV Act would not be
justified. As strict rules of evidence do not apply and any
material with probative value could be considered. Perusal of
cross-examination of claimant would reveals absence of any
suggestion against genuineness of Ex.P9. Though Ex.P9 shows
monthly salary as Rs.16,992/-. It would be appropriate to
round it off to Rs.17,000/-. Admittedly, claimant continued in
employment. Therefore, Tribunal would be justified in not
awarding future loss of income. And as fractures normally takes
three months to heal, claimant would be entitled for
Rs.51,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period as
against Rs.12,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58009
MFA No. 5568 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010281552013




11. And when claimant sustained communited fracture
of both bones of right leg, award of Rs.35,000/- only towards
pain and suffering would be inadequate and therefore,
enhanced to Rs.50,000/- . Since PW.2 stated about need for
one more surgery for removal of implants, award of only
Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses would be
inadequate and therefore, enhanced to Rs.20,000/- .
Considering inpatient treatment period for 6 days, award of
Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, attendance and other
incidental expenses would appear just and proper. Considering
fact that disability sustained is permanent and would affect
claimant in his activities outside of employment, award of
Rs.20,000/- would be inadequate and therefore, enhanced to
Rs.40,000/- . Thus, total compensation would be
Rs.1,71,000/- and when compared with compensation
awarded by tribunal, claimant would be entitled for additional
compensation of Rs.84,000/- .


12. Since, Hon'ble Supreme Court has been consistently
awarding interest at rate of 9%, submission of learned counsel
for insurer for reduction of rate of interest on enhanced

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58009
MFA No. 5568 of 2013


CNR: KAHC010281552013


compensation cannot be accepted. Point for consideration is
thus answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following:
ORDER

(a) Appeal is allowed in part .


(b) Judgment and award dated
04.02.2013 passed by Tribunal in
MVC no.5904/2011 is modified .


(c) Claimant is held entitled for
additional compensation of
Rs.84,000/- with interest at 8% per
annum from date of claim petition till
deposit.


(d) Respondent no.1 - Insurer is directed
to deposit same within a period of
six weeks.


(e) On deposit, entire compensation with
interest is ordered to be released in
favour of claimant by electronic
means.


Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE

GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21