Sri Nagendra R Vs M/S the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10580/2018 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶7

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SRI. NAGENDRA .R S/O RAMU KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O NO.13, 3RD FLOOR RAMACHANDRA BUILDING MUNESHWARA BLOCK 4TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-03.

¶9

(BY SRI. H.B. SOMAPUR, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

&APPELLANT

¶12

M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.2-B UNITY BUILDINGS ANNEXE P. KALINGA RAO ROAD MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-27.

¶13

SRI. BASAVARAJ GOWDA S/O KEMPGEGOWDA, MAJOR NO.54, IST MAIN, J C NAGAR 3RD B CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-86.

¶14

&RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:19.01.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.7040/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU [SCCH-7], PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.11.2018 passed in MVC.No.7040/2016 by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru, (for short, 8Tribunal9).

¶23

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

¶24

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

Sri.H.B.Somapur, learned counsel for the

¶26

appellant submits that the Tribunal has ignored the pay

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

slips at Ex.P12 and assessed the income notionally at Rs.9,041/- per month. It is submitted that contrary to the evidence of PW2, who has assessed the disability of the injured at 40% to the left lower limb and 20% to the whole body, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 15%. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities and award of compensation by the Tribunal under other heads is also on the lower side, hence, he seeks to enhance the same appropriately by allowing this appeal.

¶30

Per contra, Sri.Ashok N.Patil, learned counsel

¶31

for the respondent No.1-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the income of the appellant-injured at Rs.25,000/- per month cannot be considered as the appellant worked only for three months, which is evident from the oral evidence of RW 1. It is submitted that PW2 is not a treated doctor and the evidence on record indicate that implants were removed, injuries were healed and

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

fractures are united, hence, there cannot be any assessment of higher disability than what has been assessed by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that Tribunal has awarded just compensation and there is no scope for enhancement of the same. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

I have heard the arguments on both the sides

¶36

and perused the material available on record.

¶37

The appellant met with a road accident on 04.07.2016 and sustained fracture of neck of left femur and fracture of left tibia and he was inpatient in the K.C.General Hospital from 05.07.2016 to 20.07.2016. In order to prove the disability and claim of compensation, the appellant-injured himself examined as PW1 and examined other two witnesses as PW2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and the respondents got examined two witnesses as RW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1 to

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

R3. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,51,053/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶41

It is to be noticed that the appellant has sustained the aforesaid injuries as is evident from the oral testimony of PW2 and he was inpatient for 15 days. The medical evidence on record indicates that again the appellant hospitalized on 14.11.2016 and on 21.09.2017 and he was advised to remove the implants. Considering the oral evidence of PW2, wound certificate at Ex.P6, discharge summaries at Ex.P8 & 9, I am of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of PW2. Hence, the disability of the appellantinjured is assessed at 20% to the whole body.

¶42

Insofar as the income of the appellant-injured is concerned, the injured has produced the pay slips at Ex.P12, but the same is disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that RW1 has produced Ex.R1 the authorization letter, Ex.R2 pay slip of the petitioner (3 in Nos.) and

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Ex.R3, the true copy of the attendance register. The Tribunal considering the oral evidence of RW1 and documentary evidence has come to conclusion that the appellant has worked only for three months in the said company, hence, his income referred in pay slips at Ex.P12 cannot be considered. Therefore, in the absence of cogent and acceptable evidence before the Court, the income of the appellant is notionally assessed at Rs.9,500/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. The appellant was aged about 38 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 15, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under:

¶46

Rs.9,500 X 12 X 15 X 20% = Rs.3,42,000/-.

¶47

Having reassessed the disability and income,

¶48

and taking note of the injuries suffered and treatment provided to the appellant, I am of the view that the

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

compensation under other heads is also required to be reassessed appropriately as the Tribunal failed to award any compensation under the head of loss of amenities.

¶53

Hence, the appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges; Rs.38,000/- (Rs.9,500 X 4) towards the loss of income during laid-up period and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings and medical expenses is unaltered.

¶54

Thus, the appellant would be entitled to

¶55

modified compensation as under:

¶56

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	50,000
Medical expenses	19,823
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	38,000
Loss of future income due to disability	3,42,000
Loss of amenities in life	40,000
Total	5,14,823

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:21632 M.F.A. No.10580/2018

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

¶60

total compensation of Rs.5,14,823/- as against Rs.3,51,053/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶61

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

a) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶64

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

¶65

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,14,823/- as against Rs.3,51,053/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶66