CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs SRI. KHANASIDD MAYAPPA NAGARALE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102803 OF 2026 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102404 OF 2026 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 102803/2026
BETWEEN:
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER, NO.5, FIRST CROSS,
SECOND FLOOR, KUVEMPU LAYOUT,
KATTIGANAHALLI, YALAHANKA,
BENGALURU 560 064.
BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. KHANASIDD MAYAPPA NAGARALE,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NAGARMUNNOLI, TQ. CHIKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA STATE,
PIN- 591222.
2.
THE NATIONAL GOODS TRANSPORT,
SRI V. FAYAZKHAN S/O V.AMEERKHAN,
AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 16-8-18, D.K. STREET,
HINDUPUR, DIST. SATYASAI,
ANDHRA PRADESH 515201.
(OWNER OF THE ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK NO. KA-01/AJ-
7945)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW
THIS APPEAL BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
GRANTED TO THE CLAIMANT SUITABLY AND SET ASIDE THE
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2026.11.12
12:43:35 +0530
- 2 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD. 07.04.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND ADDL. MACT, CHIKODI IN
MVC NO. 45/2024 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS
AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 102404/2026
BETWEEN:
SHRI. KHANASIDD S/O MAYAPPA NAGARALE
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O. NAGARMUNNOLI, TQ. CHIKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, KARNATAKA STATE-593107.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE NATIONAL GOODS TRANSPORT,
SHRI. V. FAYAZKHAN S/O. V. AMEETKHAN,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 16-8-18, D.K. STREET, HINDUPUR,
DIST. SATYASAI, ANDRA PRADESH-591307.
2. THE MANAGER,
THE CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.5, FIRST CROSS, SECOND FLOOR,
KUVEMPU LAYOUT, KATTIGANAHALLIL, YALAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560064.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED;
SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER ADDL. MACT, CHIKODI IN MVC NO. 45/2024 DATED
07.04.2026 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR
IN THIS APPEAL BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 3 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
THESE APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
02.11.2026, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, ON
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. MFA No.102404/2026 is filed by the claimant for
enhancement of compensation and MFA No.102803/2026 is
filed by Insurer for reduction of compensation awarded in the
judgment and award dated 07.04.2026 in MVC No.45/2024 by
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT,
Chikodi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV
Act’, for short). There is no dispute with regard to the
occurrence of accident and the liability fixed on the insurance
company of the truck bearing registration No.KA-01/AJ-7945.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 and Exhibit P1 to 13, assessed disability of the
claimant at 9% and awarded compensation as follows by
fastening liability on the insurance company of the truck
bearing registration No.KA-01/AJ-7945:
Pecuniary damages
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning 3,54,705/-
Medical and hospitalization expenses 2,83,303/-
- 4 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
(present and future)
Transportation /conveyance, nourishing, 30,000/-
food and miscellaneous expenditure
Loss of earnings during the period of 41,400/-
treatment
Non-pecuniary damages
Damages for pain, suffering and trauma 50,000/-
as a consequence of the injuries
Loss of amenities /marriage prospects 20,000/-
Total 7,79,408/-
4. The learned counsel for the claimant contends that,
the Tribunal by considering the age of claimant as 27 years,
applied multiplier ‘17’ and computed future prospects at 40%,
but has not considered the medical documents and the
evidence of the doctor who assessed disability at 80%. Further,
Tribunal has also erred in fixing the income of the claimant at
Rs.13,800/- instead of Rs.15,500/- per month.
5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
argued that PW2 is a non-treating doctor and hence, his
evidence cannot be considered. Since clavicle bone is an
ornamental bone, fracture of the same will not adversely affect
his ability to carry out day-to-day work. Further, learned
counsel contends that addition of 40% e prospects is improper
and Tribunal has rightly held the assessed the disability
suffered by the claimant at 9%. Moreover, as the claimant is
working, even 9% of disability cannot be considered. In support
- 5 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anoop Maheshwari Vs. Shiv
1
Kumar Singh and Ors.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the
parties and also given anxious consideration to the available
documents on record.
7. At the outset, it is important to refer the judgment
in Anoop Maheshwari ( supra ), wherein claimant was a
businessman and income tax payee, who had suffered
amputation and a prosthetic leg was fixed. Hence, the Hon'ble
Apex Court considered that there is no difficulty in continuing
the business. Since claimant had also been fitted with a
prosthetic leg, it ensures his mobility and continuance of the
business. However, the facts involved in the above case and
the case on hand are distinguishable on facts and above
judgment is not applicable to the present case for the reason
that claimant herein was an agriculturist and as per the wound
certificates (Ex. P4) and discharge summary (Ex. P7), he had
suffered following grievous injuries/fractures:
i. Fracture shaft of right femur.
ii. Fracture both bone of right leg.
iii. Right clavicle fracture.
1
AIR 2025 SC 4099
- 6 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
th
iv. 5 MC base fracture right.
v. CLW sutured wound over right eye.
vi. Sutured CLW over left thigh 3x3cm.
8. I do not propose to venture into the various
complications that may be faced by a person who suffers
fractures, as it depends upon how the fractured bones heal.
Sometimes bone can heal in a crooked or shortened position or
fail to grow back together completely. Moreover, doctor has
explained in his evidence in detail about the difficulties faced by
the patient/claimant and has accordingly assessed functional
disability . However, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
contended that disability certificate (Ex. P8) issued by the
doctor - PW2, cannot be relied upon, as he is not the treated
doctor and that he is a stock witness . But in the case of Raj
2
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another , at paragraph 17 and
19 of the said judgment, it is held that , if a doctor, who has
issued disability certificate, gives evidence with regard to the
assessment of disability, then the same can be considered.
9. At this juncture, it is important to verify as to
whether percentage of disability assessed by the doctor is a
functional disability with reference to the whole body or
whether it is only with reference to a limb.
2
(2011) 1 SCC 343.
- 7 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
10. In reference to the argument of the insurance
company that clavicle bone is an ornamental bone and its
fracture is inconsequential, the following extract is reproduced
3
from National Library of Medicine in order to substantiate
the significance of the said bone.
“Although small, the clavicle supports optimal upper
extremity function and protects the limb by dispersing
forces transmitted through direct contact. Clavicular
positioning maintains sufficient distance between the
upper extremity and thorax, allowing unimpeded shoulder
range of motion. Strut-like mechanics allow the scapula to
glide smoothly along the posterior thoracic wall, which is
critical for full upper extremity motion. The anatomical
location also protects the brachial plexus, subclavian
artery, and subclavian vein, disruption of which
substantially increases morbidity.”
11. It is relevant to note here that the doctor - PW2 has
opined that “ the patient has got the total permanent physical
disability is at extent of 20% in respect of right upper limb due
th
to fracture right clavicle bone, fracture base of 5 metacarpal
bone of the right hand and is 60% In respect of right lower limb
3
James La Rose, Matthew Charlick; Matthew A. Varacallo, Anatomy, Shoulder and
Upper Limb, Clavicle, National Library of Medicine,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525990/
- 8 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
fracture, shaft of the right femur bone and fracture of both the
(tibia and fibula) bones of right leg…” .
12. As discussed supra , claimant is an agriculturist,
hence, above-mentioned fractures undoubtedly and severely
affected his income generating capacity and his ability to carry
out agricultural operations. This will certainly have an ever-
lasting impact on his work and life. The reason being, farming
is a physically demanding occupation, which requires one to
rely heavily on mobility, upper body strength and manual
dexterity, such fractures will have direct impact on an
agricultural worker. Therefore, in order to carry out work which
demands considerable physical strength, claimant has to
definitely depend upon others.
13. Considering the above discussed facts, evidence
and having regard to Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar
4
and Others , disability suffered by the claimant is assessed at
25%. The wages of the claimant was fixed by the Tribunal as
Rs.13,800/-. Since this accident has occurred on 12.08.2023,
as per Notional Income Chart issued by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, his income is fixed at Rs.15,500/-, to which
40% future prospects is added. Further, as rightly contended
4
(2020) 7 SCR 968
- 9 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
by learned counsel for the claimant, while awarding
compensation under the head of ‘pain and suffering’, number of
fractures suffered by the claimant were not considered by the
Tribunal. Therefore, claimant is entitled for modified
compensation as under:
Pecuniary damages
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earning
[Rs.15,500/- + 40% (future prospects)=
Rs.21,700/- x 12 x 25% x 17]
11,06,700/-
Medical and hospitalization expenses 2,83,303/-
(present and future)
Pain and suffering 95,000/-
Loss of earning during laid up period
(Rs.15,500/- x 3 months)
46,500/-
Conveyance, food, nourishment & 30,000/-
attendant charges
Loss of amenities 75,000/-
Total 16,36,503/-
14. One more contention raised by the learned counsel
for the claimant is that interest at the rate of 9% ought to be
fixed. Hence, considering the principles laid down in the cases
of Puttama and Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and
5
Another and United India Insurance Company Limited
6
Vs. Sri Malyadri M , the interest is fixed at the rate of 9% per
annum.
5
(2013) 15 SCC 45
6
MFA 3895/2018 (Bengaluru bench)
- 10 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
a. MFA No.102803/2026 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed .
b. MFA No.102404/2026 filed by the claimant is partly
allowed .
c. The judgment and award dated 07.04.2026 in MVC
No.45/2024 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge
and Member Additional MACT, Chikodi , is modified
with regard to the compensation awarded.
d. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
16,36,503/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
e. The Insurance Company herein shall deposit the
compensation, together with accrued interest,
before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks,
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
- 11 -
MFA No. 102803 of 2026
C/W MFA No. 102404 of 2026
f. The Registry shall transmit amount in deposit, if
any, and the Trial Court records to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE
KGK/CT:CNB