Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8914 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR JABEER @ MAHAMMAD JABIR
S/O MAHAMMAD SAHIB JANA @ IBRAHIM
AGED 21 YEARS
R/AT D NO 2-67
SUJEER KODANGE HOUSE,
SUJEER KODANGE ROAD,
PUDU POST, AND VILLAGE
BANTWAL TQ - 574143
PRESENTLY R/AT ZOHARA MANZIL KATIPALLA
SURATHKAL, MANGALURU
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
VARANASHI TOWERS
MISSION STREET BUNDER,
MANGALURU - 575001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
2. MOHAMMED ASHRAF
S/O IBRAHIM
AGED 33 YEARS
R/AT D NO 5-51/3 AMMEMMAR HOUSE,
FARANGIPETE POST
BANTWAL TQ - 574143
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.ARUN PONNAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DTD 9/12/22 NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED12.12.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.488/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MACT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 12.12.2017 passed in MVC
No.488/2015 by the Principal District Judge, MACT, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru (hereinafter be referred to as 'Tribunal' for
short).
2. Sri.Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error
in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of
income due to disability, solely on the ground that the disability
certificate at Ex.P-2 is 2 years after the accident. It is
submitted that PW-2 who has been examined before the
Tribunal has clearly deposed that the appellant/injured has
suffered disability to the extent of 25% which ought to have
been considered. It is submitted that no compensation is
awarded under the head of loss of amenities, loss of income
during the laid up period. Hence, he seeks to reassess the
same appropriately.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
Per contra
3. , Sri.M.Arun Ponnappa, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1, supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the
Tribunal has rightly appreciated the conduct of the claimant
that the accident is of the year 2014 and the disability
certificate is obtained 2 years later. It is submitted that PW-2 is
not a treating doctor and nothing has prevented the claimant to
examine Dr.Jalaludhin and Rizwan who were available and who
have treated the appellant/claimant. It is also submitted that
the PW-2 in cross-examination clearly admitted that he is not
an orthopedic surgeon and therefore has not treated the
injured. Hence, his evidence is suspicious and cannot be relied
on to award any compensation under the head of loss of
income due to disability. He submits that award of
compensation by the Tribunal under the head of pain and
suffering is on a higher side which can be adjusted under the
head loss of amenities. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously
perused the material available on record.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
5. The appellant as well as the Insurance Company do not
dispute that the appellant met with a road accident on
21.02.2014 and the accident is caused due to the negligence on
the part of a rider of the motorcycle which was insured with the
respondent/Insurance Company. In order to prove the claim,
the claimant examined himself as PW-1. He has examined Dr.
Suresh K.Mankar as PW-2 and one Sri.Ganesh as PW-3 and got
marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-40. The respondent did not adduce oral
evidence and got marked insurance policies as Ex.R-1 and
Ex.R-2. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary
evidence awarded total compensation of Rs.1,62,650/- along
with interest at the rate of 6%. It is to be noticed that the
appellant sustained following injuries:
1. Fracture medial mallealus right avaulsion and
fracture capitulum.
rd th
2. Fracture neck of 3 and 4 metatarsal right and
th
fracture base of 4 metatarsal right.
3. Avulsing fracture left lateral Epicondyle and
lacerating left elbow posterior aspect.
4. Fracture nasal bones.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
5. Contusion chest.
6. It is not in dispute that in order to prove the injuries
suffered by the appellant he has produced documentary
evidence like Wound Certificate at Ex.P-1 and other medical
records like bills of Highland Hospital. It is also not in dispute
that the appellant obtained the disability certificate in the year
2016 which was produced before the Tribunal which is marked
as Ex. P-2. The records indicates that the PW-2 has deposed
before the Tribunal that the appellant has sustained disability to
the extent of 25%. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
has raised objection with regard to the assessment of the
disability as to whether the disability is to the whole body or to
the particular limb is not forthcoming either from the disability
certificate at Ex.P-2 or from the deposition of PW-2. However,
the said contention is required to be rejected for the reason
that the injuries suffered by the appellant are evident from
Ex.P-1 Wound Certificate. Considering the said document as a
basis to compare the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P-2, I am of the
considered view that interest of justice would be met if the
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
disability of the injured is assessed at 9% for the purpose of
determination of compensation.
7. Having assessed the disability, the appellant/claimant
is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of income
due to physical disablement. The income of the injured is
considered as Rs.8,500/- placing reliance on the notional
income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority. The appellant/claimant was aged about 17 years.
Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be '18'. Hence, the
appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of ' loss of
income due to disability ' as under:
Rs.8,500 x12x18x9% = Rs. 1,65,240/- .
8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company is right
in submitting that the award of compensation under the head
of pain and suffering is on the higher side. Hence, considering
the said aspect and in the absence of any appeal of the
Insurance Company, I am of the view that the said
compensation is required to be retained as it is by adjusting the
same under the head of loss of amenities. Medical expenses
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
awarded by the Tribunal is as per the bills which is unaltered.
Award of compensation under the head of attendant charges,
food and nourishment and conveyance is reassessed at
Rs.10,000/-. Taking note of the fact that the injured was
inpatient for a period of 8 days in the hospital and thereafter he
was required to undergo treatment. Having assessed the
income at Rs.8,500/- this Court awards the compensation
under the ' head of loss of income during the laid up
period' at Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500 x 3).
9. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to the following
compensation.
HEADS AMOUNT
(in Rs.)
Loss of income due to disability 1,65,240.00
Towards pain and suffering and loss of 1,05,000.00
amenities
Towards attendant, nourishment and 10,000.00
conveyance charges
Towards medical expenses 53,026.30
Towards the loss of income during the laid 25,500.00
up period
Total 3,58,766.3
Rounded off to 3,58,766.00
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
10. Thus, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,58,766/- as against Rs.1,62,650/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:-
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part .
ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
appellant-claimant would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.3,58,766/- as against
Rs.1,62,650/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of payment.
iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment.
v) The entire compensation amount shall be
released in favour of the appellant-claimant.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13467
MFA No. 8914 of 2018
HC-KAR
vi) The Registry shall transfer the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
vii) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11