Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Shabeer

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6218 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SRINIVAS S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.646/12/15 1^ST CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K V SHYAMAPRASADA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. SHABEER S/O ABULLA, NO.13/8, 2^ND MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, K.P.N EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶13

HE ALSO R/AT: C/O K.P.SHERIF, SAREENAS VILLAGE, ULIYIL POST, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.

¶14

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, NO.9/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.5.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4094/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT (SCCH-18), BANGALORE CITY BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN ENHANCING THE AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is by injured claimant, calling the Judgment and Award dated 07.05.2016 in MVC No. 4094/2015 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge

¶25

and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), only on the ground of quantum of compensation.

¶26

The date of the accident, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained, and liability to pay

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute pertains

¶31

to the quantum of compensation.

¶32

Heard Sri K.V.Shyama Prasada, learned counsel

¶33

for the appellant, and Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company). Vide order dated 02.03.2022, notice to respondent No. 1 is dispensed with.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant sustained injuries to the thumb, resulting in 12% disability to the whole body. According to the evidence of Dr. Narasimha Murthy (PW2), the appellant is unable to perform any work requiring the use

¶35

of the thumb, as there is no movement or functionality in the same.

¶36

The accident occurred in the year 2015. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

¶37

Authority for that year, the notional income is fixed at ₹9,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal adopted an

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

income of ₹8,000/- per month. The compensation awarded

¶41

under the heads of "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities" is on the lower side. Further, the compensation for "loss of income during the laid-up period" is inadequate

¶42

in view of the higher income prescribed in the chart. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks enhancement of the compensation.

¶43

Per contra, Sri C.R. Ravishankar, learned

¶44

counsel for respondent No. 2, vehemently opposed the appeal. He submits that the accident occurred in 2015 and resulted in a crush injury, but there was no fracture. The Tribunal has already taken a liberal view by assessing the disability at 12% and awarding appropriate compensation. The doctor examined was not the treated doctor, and in the absence of any fracture, the Tribunal’s acceptance of 12% disability itself is generous. The income though was taken at ₹8,000/-, but in light of the higher disability assessed, the compensation awarded under all heads are

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

just and proper and requires no interference. Accordingly,

¶48

sought to dismissal of the appeal.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶50

and perused the appeal papers as well as the trial court records,

¶51

The only question that arises for consideration

¶52

is:

¶53

"Whether the claimant has made out a case for enhancement of compensation?"

¶54

My answer to the above question is partly in the affirmative , for the following reasons:

¶55

As per the chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income for the year 2015 is Rs.9,000/per month. The Tribunal, however, considered it as Rs.8,000/- per month. Though the doctor (PW2) was not the treated doctor, he has categorically stated that there is no movement in the thumb and it is

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

non-functional, rendering the appellant unable to use the limb for any work. Considering the appellant’s avocation as a coolie, the impairment of the thumb undoubtedly affects his earning capacity.

¶59

In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the Tribunal appropriately assessed the disability at 12%, but erred in adopting the monthly income. Further, in view of the nature of the injuries, the compensation awarded under the head of "pain and suffering" and "loss of amenities" is meager and requires enhancement. Additionally, upon adopting the higher income, the compensation under the head of "loss of future income" and "loss of income during the laid-up period" also requires re-determination.

¶60

In view of the foregoing, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal warrants interference and modification.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Accordingly, the compensation is re-determined

¶64

as follows:

¶65

Loss of future income	:	Rs.	1,81,440/-
(9,000X12X14X12%)
Pain and suffering	:	Rs.	35,000/-
Loss of amenities	:	Rs.	30,000/-
Loss of Attendance, Nourishment and conveyance charges	:	Rs.	9,000/-
Medical Expensed	:	Rs.	43,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period	:	Rs.	27,000/-
(9,000 X 3)
Total	:	Rs.	3,25,440/-

¶66

Upon re-determination, the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,25,440/-, as against Rs.2,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would come to Rs.43,440/- rounded off to Rs.43,500/- , which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

ORDER

¶71

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶72

ii. The Judgment and Award dated 07.05.2016 in MVC.No.4094/2015 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.43,500/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand and Five Hundred only), with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶73

iii. Respondent No. 2 – Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.43,440/- along with accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:42463 MFA No. 6218 of 2016

¶75