Partly allowed

Chethan Kumar H N v. Suresh Kumar H N

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2026MFA/1681/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injured claimant appealed for enhancement of motor accident compensation. Court re-assessed notional income at Rs.12,500 per month per KSLSA chart, upheld 7% disability, and enhanced total compensation from Rs.3,02,112 to Rs.3,94,232 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,02,112 to Rs.3,94,232 with 6% p.a. interest; insurer to deposit within six weeks.

Chethan Kumar H N Vs Suresh Kumar H N — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:15288 MFA No. 1681 of 2020

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1681 OF 2020(MV-I)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

CHETHAN KUMAR H.N., S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY H, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O HEBAKA, KASABA HOBLI, URUKERE POST, TUMAKURU, TALUK AND DISTRICT: TUMAKURU.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. N.M. HANDRAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SURESH KUMAR H.N. S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY H, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O HEBAKA, KASABA HOBLI, URUKERE POST, TUMAKURU, TALUK AND TUMAKURU DISTRICT: 572101.

¶16

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OFFICE OPPOSITE RAMA MANDIRA, GENERAL CARIAPPA ROAD, BARLINE ROAD, K.R.EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572101.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. R. GOVINDARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15288 MFA No. 1681 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.04.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.949/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the injured/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.04.2019 passed in MVC No.949/2018 by the Court of I Addl. District Judge and MACT at Tumakuru, (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶26

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

¶27

Sri.N.M.Handral, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the income of the injured by ignoring the oral evidence and the salary certificate at Ex.P.14. By considering oral evidence, salary certificate and the agricultural income it

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15288 MFA No. 1681 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

would be Rs.30,000/- per month and Rs.14,000/- per month from MRF Tyre company. Hence, the income of the injured is required to be re-assessed. Similarly, the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and award of compensation on all heads is also required to be enhanced appropriately. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶31

Per Contra, Sri.R.Govindarajan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the oral evidence of the injured and Ex.P.14 – the salary certificate, if it is accepted, then the appellant would not be entitled for any compensation on the head of loss of future earning due to disability, as the same would establish that even after the accident, he continued with employment. It is submitted that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all other head is just and fair and there is no scope to enhance the compensation. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶32

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶33

for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:15288 MFA No. 1681 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The only point that would arise for consideration in

¶38

this appeal is:

¶39

“ Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference? ”

¶40

The above point is answered in the affirmative for

¶41

the following reasons:

¶42

The records indicate that the appellant met with a road accident on 07.07.2018 and it is due to the negligence of the offending vehicle. It is averred that the injured was aged about 27 years and working as a sales representative in MRF Tyres and earning income from agriculture and in all Rs.34,000/-. In order to prove the income, the appellant produced Ex.P.14-Salary certificate, the document at Ex.P.14 is the certificate issued after the accident and there is no other evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the appellant was in regular employment in the said company and was earning Rs.14,000/- as stated in Ex.P.14. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to prove his employment and income, I am of the view that his income is required to be re-assessed notionally at Rs.12,500/- placing reliance on the chart prepared by the KSLSA.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15288 MFA No. 1681 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Insofar as the disability is concerned, the Tribunal considering the oral evidence of P.W.2, Ex.P.7 – discharge summary and other medical records assess the disability at 7%. Taking note of the injury suffered by the appellant as per Ex.P.5-wound certificate i.e., Comminuted proximal tibia fracture. In view of the said injuries, considering the evidence, I am of the view that the Tribunal has fully justified in assessing the disability. Having re-assessed the income and taking note of the treatment provided to the appellant, the compensation is required to be re-assessed and accordingly it is re-assessed and the appellant would be entitled to modified compensation as under:

¶46

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	Rs.40,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs.53,232/-
Food and Nourishment	Rs.10,000/-
Transportation charges	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	Rs.40,000/-
Attendant Charges	Rs.5,000/-
Loss of future income (12,500 x 12 x 17 x 7%)	Rs.1,78,500/-
Loss of income during laid up period (12,500 x 3)	Rs.37,500/-
Future Medical expenses	Rs.20,000/-
Total	Rs.3,94,232/-

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:15288 MFA No. 1681 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,94,232/- as against Rs.3,02,112/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶51

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

a) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶55

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellantclaimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,94,232/- as against Rs.3,02,112/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶56

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶57

d) The respondent No.2 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

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:15288 MFA No. 1681 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.

¶62

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶63

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶64

RHS

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Chethan Kumar H N v. Suresh Kumar H N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chethan Kumar H N v. Suresh Kumar H N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs Manjegowda

M/S Teknopoint Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt P Anitha

Mr Sukumara Vs Mr Safiq Sahil

Sri Muniyappa Vs the Manager

Marulamma Vs Punith B

B.Shantharaju Vs the Divisional Controller