MR JOHN SIJO MATHEW vs FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2398 OF 2015(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

MR JOHN SIJO MATHEW
S/O MATHEW MOOLAKATTU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
H.NO.MA-33,
KARNATAKA HOUSING
BOARD COLONY,
BAJAL, EKKUR,
MANGALORE TALUK.
…APPELLANT






(BY SRI B.R.GURUPRASAD, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. FUTURE GENERAL INDIA
INSURANCE CO.LTD
II FLOOR, INLAND AVENUE,
M.G. ROAD, BALLAL BHAGH,
MANGALORE TALUK – 575 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

SIGN

2. MR. ABDUL RAZAK
S/O ABDUL KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
KULA VILLAGE, KADAKA,
BANTWAL TALUK.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015


3. MR. LANCY D"SOUZA
S/O MARTINE D"SOUZA,
ADULT,
DEEPIKA NIVAS,
MANI POST, BANTWAL TALUK
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/C/O DATED 04.07.2016 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.921/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 27.10.2014
passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Member-MACT,
Mangalore, in MVC no.921/2012, this appeal is filed.


2. Sri BR Guruprasad, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of
compensation. Brief facts leading to this appeal as stated were

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015


that at 10:15 am on 18.02.2012, when claimant and his wife
were riding motorcycle no.KA-19/U-8484 near Neerakatte of
Bajathur village, driver of Jeep no.KA-19-B-1116 drove it in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant. Due
to which they sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment
at Father Muller Hospital, Mangalore, did not recover fully and
sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, claimant herein
filed claim petition in MVC no.921/2012 under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (' MV Act ') against RC owner, insured
and insurer of offending vehicle. His wife had filed MVC
no.476/2012. They were clubbed together.


3. Despite service of summons, respondents no.1 and
2 remained absent and were placed ex-parte. Insurer opposed
claim petition on all grounds. Based on same, Tribunal framed
issues and recorded evidence. Claimant along with
Dr.Sudhakara, deposed as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1
to P3, P5, P6, P8 to P11 and P14 to 17. There was no rebuttal
evidence by respondents.


4. On consideration, Tribunal held accident had
occurred due to negligent driving of insured vehicle, claimant

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015


sustained loss of earning capacity and was entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,19,947/- with interest at 6% per annum
from insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum, appeal was filed.


5. It was submitted, as on date of accident, claimant
was aged 33 years working as Chief Chef and earning
Rs.5,000/- per month, sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula,
right fibula, right superior pubic rami, fracture of fourth and
fifth right ribs etc. PW.3, who had examined claimant assessed
permanent physical disability sustained by claimant at 50% to
both lower limbs. Despite same, Tribunal erred in taking
monthly income at only Rs.4,500/-, disability at 10% and
awarding inadequate compensation. Further, even
compensation of Rs.85,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.38,000/- towards attendance and other incidental charges,
Rs.1,87,147/- towards medical expenses, Rs.91,800/- towards
future loss of income and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income
during period of treatment were on lower side and sought
enhancement. It was submitted, Tribunal erred in not awarding
compensation towards loss of amenities. On above grounds,
sought for allowing appeal.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015




6. On other hand, Sri HS Lingaraj, learned counsel for
respondent no.1 – insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted,
considering material on record, Tribunal had assessed just
compensation under each of heads separately, which did not
call for enhancement.


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


8. From above and since only claimant is in appeal for
enhancement, point that arises for consideration is:
Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?


9. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident due to rash and negligent driving by offending vehicle
and claimant being entitled for compensation. Though claimant
stated that he was aged 33 years and earning Rs.5,000/- as
Chief Chef, he did not produce any document. In absence,
Tribunal assessed it notionally at Rs.4,500/-. But notional
income for year 2012 being Rs.7,500/- per month, same has to
be taken. As per treatment records, claimant sustained fracture
of left tibia and fibula, right fibula, right superior pubic rami and

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015


fracture of fourth and fifth right ribs. As per PW.3, claimant
sustained permanent physical disability of 50% to lower limbs.


10. Tribunal disbelieved same and assessed functional
disability at 10%. But in Ex.P10 - Disability certificate issued by
Medical Board, physical disability is assessed at 50%.
Therefore, it is found appropriate to assess loss of earning
capacity at 20%. Considering age of claimant at 33 years,
multiplier of ‘17’ applied instead of ‘16’ by Tribunal would be
erroneous. Thus, compensation towards future loss of income
would be:
Rs.7,500 + 40% x 20% x 12 x 16 = Rs.4,03,200/-


11. Tribunal awarded Rs.85,000/- towards pain and
suffering. Taking note of multiple fractures to structural bones,
it would be inadequate. It would be appropriate to enhance it to
Rs.1,25,000/- . Considering in-patient treatment period of 30
days award of Rs.38,000/- towards attendant charges, food,
nourishment and conveyance would appear just and proper.
Tribunal granted Rs.1,87,147/- in full reimbursement of
medical bills produced leaving no scope for enhancement.
Tribunal considered period of 4 months as layoff during healing.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015


Normally fractures take about 3 months to heal. Therefore,
compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period
would be Rs.22,500/- (Rs.7,500/- x 3). When claimant
sustained permanent physical disability, Tribunal erred in not
awarding compensation towards loss of amenities. Considering
injuries, it would be appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- . Thus,
total compensation would be Rs.8,25,847/-. Point for
consideration is answered partly in affirmative .


12. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) Claimant is entitled for reassessed
compensation of Rs.8,25,847/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim
petition till deposit.
(iii) Insurer is directed to deposit
enhanced compensation with interest within
six weeks.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59543
MFA No. 2398 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010236552015


(iv) On deposit entire enhanced
compensation with interest shall be released
in favour of claimant.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE




YKL, AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27