Sri. Gopal S Vs Sri. Arunkumar

¶1

1 -

¶2

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5738 OF 2016(MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GOPAL S S/O SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O BELALAMAKKI, GANDHINAGAR, SAGAR TOWN - 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. DINESH M BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. ARUNKUMAR S/O K.G. KRISHNA MESTHRI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O KELADI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, SAGAR TOWN - 577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI YOGKUMAR S/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VINOB NAGAR, SAGAR TOWN - 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

¶15

2 -

¶16

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶17

SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶18

SRI MALLESHAPPA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O NUGGE MALLAPURA, SORABA TALUK - 577 413 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶19

SRI K G CHANNAPPA S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NEAR INDIRA GANDHI COLLAGE, SAGAR TOWN - 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶20

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SAGAR TOWN - 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶21

SRI N.CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O SIDDESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE, KADUR - 577 548 CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; V/O DTD:24.09.2019, NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R5 & R7 IS D/W)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.04.2016 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.311/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR IN SO FAR AS DISALLOWING THE COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF RS.1,45,000/-

¶25

3 -

¶26

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶27

AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶30

CAV JUDGMENT

¶31

The present appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘MV Act’) to modify the Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2016 in MVC No.311/2013 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Shivamogga sitting at Sagar (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) and allow the claim petition filed by the claimants.

¶32

The appellant/respondent herein is the

¶33

claimant/respondent before the Tribunal. The claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act was filed by the petitioner/claimant claiming the compensation of Rs.9,45,000/-.

¶34

4 -

¶35

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶36

The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

¶37

Petitioner/claimant, a PWD Contractor and

¶38

Agriculturist earning Rs.30,000/- per month, met with an accident on 23.04.2012 at about 1:20 p.m. on NH-206 near Ullur-Hakrekoppa Cross while returning to Sagar in a Prakash Travels bus Reg.No.KA15/7568 driven by respondent No.4. One private bus Reg.No.KA-18-A-3123 driven by the respondent No.1 rashly dashed with it, causing grievous injuries and permanent disability to the petitioner/claimant, who spent heavy amount on treatment. The respondents No.1, 4, 5, and 7 remained ex-parte , while respondents No.2, 3, and 6 denied the claim.

¶39

In order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner/claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P27. On the other hand, respondents neither adduced any evidence nor produced any documents.

¶40

5 -

¶41

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶42

The Tribunal, based on oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs.1,45,000/with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents No.2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were held jointly and severally liable, but respondent No.3 - The National Insurance Company and respondent No.6 - United India Insurance Company, were directed to deposit 50% each of the amount with costs and interest respectively.

¶43

The Tribunal failed to properly consider that the appellant, aged 36 years, was a Class II PWD contractor and Agriculturist earning Rs.30,000/- per month, as supported by Ex.P.20 (Contract Licence) and Ex.P.22 (Income Tax Return). Despite this, the Tribunal wrongly assessed his income as Rs.20,000/- per month and granted only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period.

¶44

It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the medical evidence of PW2, who confirmed

¶45

6 -

¶46

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶47

that the appellant suffered severe restriction and pain in the right upper limb affecting daily activities. Despite such disability, only Rs.30,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, and the amounts awarded towards medical expenses Rs.25,000/-, loss of future amenities Rs.40,000/-, and conveyance, nourishment, and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- are on the lower side. The Tribunal also failed to grant any amount for future medical expenses and loss of future earnings. Therefore, sought for overall enhancement of compensation under all relevant heads.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another by order dated 29.09.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.5510/2005, Paragraph 7 of which reads as under:

¶49

“We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is

¶50

7 -

¶51

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶52

compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.

¶53

9. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶54

In the present case there is no dispute regarding the liability. Both the insurance companies have agreed for 50% liability with the interest @ 6% per annum respectively as awarded by the Tribunal. The challenge is only with regard to the enhancement of the compensation.

¶55

8 -

¶56

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶57

The Tribunal has awarded compensation as

¶58

under:

¶59

Sl.No.	Particulars	Rs.
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 30,000/-
2.	Loss of income during treatment period	Rs. 40,000/-
3.	Medical expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 40,000/-
5.	Conveyance, nourishment & diet	Rs. 10,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.1,45,000/-

¶60

The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.25,000/x 3) towards loss of income during laid up period, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. A sum of Rs.60,000/is awarded towards loss of amenities and a sum of Rs.20,000/is awarded towards Attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment and diet. Further, claimant would be entitled to loss of future earning as under:

¶61

Rs.25000/- p.m. minus 1/3 = Rs.14,000/-

¶62

As 21% disability is suffered by the claimant, applying multiplier 15, the claimant would be entitled to

¶63

9 -

¶64

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶65

Rs.5,29, 200* /- (21% of Rs.14,000/- = Rs. *2940 /- X 12 X

¶66

towards loss of future earning.

¶67

Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation

¶68

as under:

¶69

Sl.No.	Particulars	Rs.
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.50,000/-
2.	Loss of income during treatment period	Rs.75,000/- (25,000 X 3)
3.	Medical expenses	Rs.25,000/-
4.	Loss of future income	Rs.5,29,200*/-
5.	Loss of amenities	Rs.60,000/-
6.	Attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment & diet	Rs.*20,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.7,59,200/-

¶70

In the result, the following Order is passed:

¶71

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed

¶72

in part.

¶73

ii) The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,59,200/- along with

¶74

*CORRECTED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED 22.01.2026

¶75

10 -

¶76

MFA No. 5738 of 2016

¶77

interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

¶78

iii) Respondent Nos.3 and *6 /the Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶79

iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith.

¶80

vii) Amount in deposit along with accrued interest if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶81

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶82

BNV

¶83

*CORRECTED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED 22.01.2026

Sri. Gopal S v. Sri. Arunkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gopal S v. Sri. Arunkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Komala Vs H M Premaleela

Sri.Nagaraja Vs Smt.Chandramma

S N Shivappa Vs Shanthamma

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Yogesh

Shabbir Ahamed Vs Abdul Rehaman

Bhanuprakash Vs Mariswamy