Mr. Muniraju .a Vs the Regional Manager

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.166/2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

MR. MUNIRAJU .A S/O LATE APPAJIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.E-4, 4TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS G.M.PALYA, GARAKAMANTHANA PALYA BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE-75.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED SHERIFF, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144 M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-1.

¶13

MRS. C. MAHESWARI W/O SENTHILKUMAR NO.7/138, ELUR ROAD KALAGANI POST NAMKKAL DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:03.09.2024 NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3401/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the injured claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 30.08.2018 passed in MVC.No.3401/2016 by the MACT and I Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, (for short 'Tribunal').

¶24

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

¶25

Smt.Ambika M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income and disability of the injured. It is submitted that the injured was working as a chef and was

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the accidental disability, he is unable to continue his avocation. It is further submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is very meager, which is required to be enhanced appropriately by considering the

¶30

oral and documentary evidence on record. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

¶31

Per contra, Sri.L Sreekanta Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellant/claimant has only made selfserving statement with regard to the income; however, no proof of income was produced. It is submitted that considering the nature of the treatment provided and the expenses incurred, the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding the compensation on all other heads, which does not call for any enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶36

appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶37

The point that arises for consideration in this

¶38

appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶39

The records indicate that the appellant/claimant met with a road accident on 21.03.2016 and sustained grievous injuries. In order to prove the income and disability, the appellant/claimant examined himself as PW1 and also examined a doctor as PW5, who has assessed the disability at 23%. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant claimed to be working as a chef, however, no proof of income was placed before the Tribunal. Hence, his income is notionally reassessed at Rs.9,500/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA.

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Insofar as the disability is concerned, PW5 has

¶43

deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant/claimant has sustained whole body disability at 23% but PW5 is not the treated doctor. The Tribunal considering the same has assessed the disability at 8%. I have perused the wound certificate and discharge summary. It is to be noticed that the appellant/claimant sustained following injuries which is evident from Ex.P23, wound certificate and the oral testimony of PW5:

¶44

"Right type III C open distal tibia fracture, medial malleolus fracture, talus fracture and ankle dislocation and anterior tibial vessel injury and tibialis anterior, EDL, EHL, peroneus tertius tendon injury and left sylvian tissue-sub arachnoid haemorrhage-traumatic."

¶45

The records further indicate that the appellant/claimant was treated as an inpatient for more than 31 days and underwent intermittent treatment for more than 7 months. The treatment provided to the appellant/claimant has been elaborately considered by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.9 to 11 and awarded

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

compensation. In my considered view, considering the nature of treatment provided and injuries suffered, it would be appropriate to reassess the disability at 18%. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident; hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 14, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Having reassessed the income and disability of the appellant/claimant and considering the other oral and documentary evidence on record, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under:

¶49

Rs.9,500 X 12 X 14 X 18% = Rs.2,87,280/-.

¶50

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,32,654/towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is unaltered. However, taking note of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is required to be reassessed by

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

appropriately enhancing the same. The appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶55

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	60,000
Loss of amenities	45,000
Medical expenses	6,32,654
Loss of income during laid-up period (Rs.9,500 X 5)	47,500
Loss of future income due to disability	2,87,280
Towards conveyance, attendant charges,	25,000
food and nourished food
Future medical expenses	5,000
Total	11,02,434

¶56

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total

¶57

Rs.8,46,174/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶59

following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

a) Appeal stands allowed in part .

¶62

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

¶63

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:12794 M.F.A. No.166/2020

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

compensation of Rs. 11,02,434 /- as against

¶68

Rs.8,46,174/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶69

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 excluding the interest for the delayed period of 365 days as per the order dated 03.03.2026.

¶70

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.

¶71

e) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the appellant.

¶72

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶73

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶74

ABK

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Mr. Muniraju .a v. the Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Muniraju .a v. the Regional Manager

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. K. Vijaykumar Vs Smt. Nalina .S

Sri M a Madhusudana Vs Sri Krishnappa

Santhosh K Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Mr. Rajesh Alias Ranjith Vs Mr. Arjun Ram

Sri Sheik Mubarak Vs Sri Niranjan

Syed Afsar Vs Smt Saleema Begum