Partly allowed¶50

Lokeshappa @ B.V. Lokesh v. K P Mohan

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2025MFA/6679/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: enhancement of compensation; MFA 173(1) MV Act; MVC 157/2010 MACT Kadur; road traffic accident 2010; notional income Rs.5,500 KSLSA; laid-up period six months; permanent physical disability 26.5% whole body; future prospects 25% Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; multiplier 14 Sarla Verma 2009 SAR (Civ) 592; fracture left tibia; spinal cord injury; agriculturist claimant; interest 6% per annum; Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.; deposit within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced by Rs.1,93,515/-, to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit; respondent No.3 (insurer) directed to deposit the enhanced sum within eight weeks from receipt of copy of the order; on such deposit the appellant permitted to withdraw the entire amount. ¶50

Lokeshappa @ B.V. Lokesh Vs K P Mohan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation of Rs.3,82,573/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.157/2010 ought to be enhanced. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Considering the fractures of the left tibia and left pubic Rami, injury to the spinal cord, and about 53 days of inpatient treatment, the Court held the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of six months.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Notional income of the appellant fixed at Rs.5,500/- per month; loss of earnings during the laid-up period computed at Rs.33,000/- (Rs.5,500 x 6) as against the Rs.12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under that head.

¶37

Key takeaways

The permanent physical disability of 26.5% in respect of the whole body, as taken by the Tribunal basing on the evidence of CW1, needs no interference.ratio¶38
Loss of future earnings recomputed at Rs.3,06,075/- by taking monthly income of Rs.5,500/-, adding 25% towards future prospects as per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, applying multiplier '14' as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 SAR (Civ) 592, and the 26.5% whole-body disability; enhancement of Rs.1,72,515/- over the Rs.1,33,560/- awarded.ratio¶42
Compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads requires no interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Enhancement of motor accident compensation (MFA u/s 173(1) MV Act) against award dated 08.07.2014 in MVC No.157/2010 of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kadur, whereby the injured claimant (agriculturist, aged 44 at the 2010 accident; fracture of left tibia, fracture of left pubic Rami and spinal cord injury; 53 days inpatient treatment) had been granted Rs.3,82,573/-. The High Court raised the notional income from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,500/- per month (KSLSA scale for 2010), allowed a six-month laid-up period (loss of earnings Rs.33,000/-), retained the 26.5% whole-body disability assessed on CW1's evidence, added 25% towards future prospects per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and applied multiplier '14' per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 SAR (Civ) 592, recomputing loss of future earnings at Rs.3,06,075/-. Compensation under all other heads left undisturbed. Appeal allowed in part: enhancement of Rs.1,93,515/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit; insurer (respondent No.3) to deposit within eight weeks.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6351 MFA No. 6679 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6679 OF 2014(MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LOKESHAPPA @ B.V. LOKESH, S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O BANDIKOPPALU VILLAGE, PATTANAGERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

K. P. MOHAN, S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/AT SAKHARYAPATNA VILLAGE AND POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548.

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

H. SOMASHEKAR, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT BANOOR VILLAGE, SAKHARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548.

¶14

FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT 201 AND 202, INLAND AVENUE, 2^ND FLOOR, BALA BAGH, OPP. HERO HONDA SHOW ROOM, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 21.01.2015)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:6351 MFA No. 6679 of 2014

¶19

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.157/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT KUDUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Heard Sri.Raghu R. who represents Sri.Srikanth Patil K.,

¶24

learned counsel on record for the appellant as well as Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶25

The claimant in MVC No.157/2010 which was dealt with by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kadur and was disposed of through order dated 08.07.2014 is before this Court through this appeal. The appellant seeks for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.3,82,573/as compensation. The version of the appellant is that he is entitled to a higher sum.

¶26

Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6351 MFA No. 6679 of 2014

¶28

in a road traffic accident. He took treatment as an inpatient at different hospitals for about two months. The appellant, as an agriculturist was earning huge sum by the date of accident. However, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned counsel states that the accident occurred in the year 2010 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.5,500/- per month and atleast said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal. Learned counsel also states that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is also grossly low. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement of compensation.

¶29

The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand is that the Tribunal subjecting the entire evidence to scrutiny has came to a just conclusion and therefore the award of the Tribunal needs no interference.

¶30

The Tribunal, considering the evidence that is

¶31

brought on record i.e., the evidence of PW1, CW1, Exs.P1 to P203 and Exs.C1 to C4 came to a conclusion that the appellant

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6351 MFA No. 6679 of 2014

¶33

is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,82,573/- as compensation divided under following heads:

¶34

Sl. No	Heads of compensation	Amount in Rs.
1	Pain and Sufferings	50,000/-
2	Medical Expenses	1,37,013/-
3	Traveling/Conveyance Expenses	10,000/-
4	Attendant Charges and Nutritious Food	10,000/-
5.	Loss of Income during treatment / rest period	12,000/-
6	Loss of Future Income	1,33,560/-
7	Future Medical Expenses	20,000/-
8	Towards discomfort and loss of amenities of life	10,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,82,573/-

¶35

The appellant by all the evidence produced has established that he sustained fracture of left tibia, fracture of left pubic Rami and injury to the spinal cord. The appellant also succeeded in establishing that he took treatment as an inpatient for about 53 days. Having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of six months.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6351 MFA No. 6679 of 2014

¶37

Coming to the occupation and earnings of the appellant by the date of accident, as per his version, as an agriculturist, he was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. However, the appellant failed to establish his actual earnings by the date of accident. But, having considered the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the notional income of the appellant is required to be taken as Rs.5,500/- per month. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.33,000/- (5,500/- x 6). The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- only under the head loss of income during laid up period. Thus, enhancement will be (Rs.33,000/- - Rs.12,000/-).

¶38

Coming to loss of future earnings, basing on the evidence of CW1, the Tribunal took the disability in respect of whole body as 26.5% which need no interference. Having considered the age of the appellant as 44 years by the date of accident, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. Also the

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6351 MFA No. 6679 of 2014

¶40

multiplier which is required to be applied as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592 is '14'. Thus, loss of future earnings on calculation will be as under:

¶41

Description	Amount Rs.
Income per month	5,500-00
Annual income(5,500x12)	66,000-00
Add 25% towards future prospects (66,000+25%)	82,500-00
Applying the appropriate multiplier'14'(82,500x14)	11,55,000-00
Loss of future earnings,
permanent physical disability in respect of	03,06,075-00
whole body being 26.5%

¶42

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,33,560/- only under the head loss of future income. Thus, enhancement will be Rs.1,72,515/- (Rs.3,06,075/- - Rs.1,33,560/-).

¶43

Though, learned counsel for the appellant states that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under all other heads is low, having considered the nature of injuries sustained and the evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the compensation granted under all other heads requires no

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:6351 MFA No. 6679 of 2014

¶46

interference. Thus, the enhancement will be an extent of Rs.1,93,515/- (Rs.1,72,515/- + Rs.21,000/-).

¶47

Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kadur, through orders in MVC No.157/2010 dated 08.07.2014 is enhanced by Rs.1,93,515/-.

¶51

(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶52

(iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶53

(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶54

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶55

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Lokeshappa @ B.V. Lokesh v. K P Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokeshappa @ B.V. Lokesh v. K P Mohan

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. Gayathri B.P Vs Sri. Mali Suresh

Sri M a Papachan Vs Sri. Lokesha

Smt Arpita @ Keerti Jagadeesh Ramadurg @ Arpitha H.N. Vs Sri Jagadish @ Jagadish S Ramadurga

Master Shukruth Gowda Vs Smt. Dyvamma

Master Rajesh Vs Sri Basavaraj R

Smt. Vaishnavi D Vs Sri. H R Shivaprasad