Nagaraj S P Vs Pranesh v Managooli

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13745 M.F.A. No.1588/2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1588/2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

NAGARAJ S.P. S/O PAKKIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS OCC : SALES REPRESENTATIVE WORK OF BINDU SODA COMPANY R/O. 3RD MAIN, 10TH CROSS YALLAMMA NAGAR, DAVANAGERE. …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

PRANESH V. MANAGOOLI S/O V.M. MANAGOOLI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS DRIVER AND OWNER OF CAR BEARING REG.NO. KA-05/MC-2385 R/O. DOOR NO.50/2 PALLAGATTI COMPOUND AVK COLLEGE ROAD P.J. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE.

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE-34/3, AVK COMPLEX AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P.J. EXTENSION DAVANAGERE.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 D/W V/O/DTD:25.07.2023)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13745 M.F.A. No.1588/2020

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 05.12.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.872/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND VI-MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.12.2018 passed in MVC No.872/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Davanagere, (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶22

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

Sri.Rajashekhar K., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in not awarding any compensation under the head of

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13745 M.F.A. No.1588/2020

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

loss of income due to disability by ignoring the oral evidence of PW2 and the wound certificate as at Ex.P4. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and all other heads by ignoring the fact that the appellant was in-patient for a period of more than 10 days, suffered two fractures and underwent surgery requiring the insertion of implants. Hence, he seeks to reassess the same by allowing the appeal.

¶27

Per contra, Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - insurance company vehemently oppose the appeal and seeks to sustain the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding at para No.10 with regard to the rejection of the claim for compensation under the head of loss of income due to physical disability as PW2 has not assessed any disability. It is submitted that the award of compensation on all other

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:13745 M.F.A. No.1588/2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

heads is also just and fair and does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶32

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶33

It is not in dispute that in a road accident dated 06.09.2017 the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries as well as fracture of right fibula, tibia and 5^th metatarsal of bone. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was provided treatment at Navodaya Hospital, Davanagere and was in-patient for a period of 10 days and after surgery, implants were inserted. The perusal of the evidence of Doctor - PW2 indicates that he has not assessed any disability of the appellant-injured nor issued the disability certificate. In the absence of said evidence, it would be difficult for this Court to assess the compensation under the head of loss of income due to physical disablement. However, in my considered view,

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13745 M.F.A. No.1588/2020

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation

¶37

on other heads.

¶38

Having said supra and that the appellant has failed to produce any legally acceptable evidence with regard to the award of compensation under the head of loss of income due to physical disability, this Court also cannot ignore the fact that the appellant has sustained three fractures, undergone surgery, and he was inpatient for a period of 10 days in the hospital, considering the said aspect and on appreciating oral testimony of PW2 and other medical records, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be re-assessed. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards pain & suffering; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs.25,000/- towards food, nourishment and conveyance charges. The appellant would be entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000 X 3) towards the loss of income during laid-up period. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13745 M.F.A. No.1588/2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

expenses is unaltered. Thus, the appellant would be

¶42

entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶43

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	60,000
Loss of amenities	50,000
Food, nourishment and conveyance charges	25,000
Loss of income during laid up period	33,000
Medical bills	96,283
Total	2,64,283
Rounded off to	2,64,290

¶44

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

¶45

total compensation of Rs.2,64,290/- as against

¶46

Rs.1,64,290/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶47

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶48

following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

a) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶51

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,64,290/- as

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:13745 M.F.A. No.1588/2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

against Rs.1,64,290/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.

¶57

d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶58

e) The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellantclaimant.

¶59

f) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶60

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶61

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶62

BSR

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Nagaraj S P v. Pranesh v Managooli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj S P v. Pranesh v Managooli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C R Srinivas Vs Smt Rajashree

Shashank Y P Vs Dileep J P

Sri Malledevirappa Vs Sri Sadashiva

Jayamma Vs K Shekarappa

Sri Sumanth R Vs Icici Lombard General

Smt Manjula Vs Sri Srinivas B v