Partly allowed

Shashidhar v. Prajwal J

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026MFA/1923/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the quantum of compensation in a motor accident injury claim. The High Court revised the notional income, confirmed the disability assessment, and enhanced the total compensation to Rs.4,18,430/-, granting an additional Rs.2,29,000/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced from Rs.1,89,430/- to Rs.4,18,430/-; Insurance Company directed to deposit extra Rs.2,29,000/- with 6% interest.

Shashidhar Vs Prajwal J — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1923 OF 2016

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHASHIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O RAGHU KOTIAN, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.4-137-1, GURUPRASAD, PUTHIGE VILLAGE, SAMPIGE POST, MANGALORE TALUK

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. SIDDARAJA.H.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY.H., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

PRAJWAL.J., AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE C.N. GOMATESHWAR, RESIDING AT NO.2035, H.I.G.B. SECTOR, YALAHANAKA NEW TOWN - 560064 BENGALURU.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BALMATTA BRANCH, SALDHANA BUILDING, BREGRADE ROAD, BALMATTA - 575002, MANGALORE.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DTD 8.4.19)

¶20

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.171/2015 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 10.06.2015 passed in MVC No.171/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Karkala, for enhancing the compensation.

¶27

Heard the arguments of both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶28

The injured claimant met with an accident on 03.03.2014 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,89,430/with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation.

¶29

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is further contended that the appellant sustained multiple

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

injuries, which are grievous in nature. The petitioner was inpatient in the Hospital for more than 12 days and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses but the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.90,830/towards medical expenses. The petitioner has examined the Doctor and he advised the bed rest for four months and has assessed the disability as 10% to the whole body but the Tribunal has taken the disability as 5%.

¶33

Further, it is contended that the petitioner was working as civil contractor along with his father and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken his notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on lower side and the amounts granted on the other heads are meagre. Therefore, requested for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

On perusal of records, it is seen that though the petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2014 this Court finds it is just and reasonable to take the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.8,500/- per month as per the charge prepared by the Karnataka State Legal

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Services Authority. He was aged 22 years as on the date of accident, therefore the relevant multiplier is "18". The

¶39

petitioner sustained the following injuries:

¶40

(i) Abrasion, 4cm x 3cm, just away from right eye.

¶41

(ii) Abrasion, 3cm x 3cm, over right cheek.

¶42

(iii) Abrasion, 3cm x 3cm, over outer aspect of right elbow.

¶43

(iv) CT Scan of Head No. 38392 shows, a) Fracture of medial wall of bilateral maxillary sinus.

¶44

b) Acute extra dural haematoma along the left temporal parietal convexity causing mass effect and midline shift to the right.

¶45

c) Small extra dural haematoma over left temporal lobe with minimal sub arachnoid haemorrhage.

¶46

d) Contusions over right temporal region and midbrain.

¶47

e) Diffuse cerebral edema.

¶48

The petitioner has placed on record the wound

¶49

certificate at Ex.P7 and Ex.P13-Discharge Summary and also examined Doctor as PW.2. The Doctor assessed the permanent

¶50

physical disability as 10% to the whole body. The petitioner sustained fracture of medial wall of bilateral maxillary sinus and abrasions and also there is loss of smell for him. Therefore,

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

considering the medical evidence on record, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take the disability as 10% as assessed by the Doctor. So 'loss of future earning capacity' comes to Rs.8500x12x18x10%=1,83,600/-. The petitioner was admitted in the Hospital for a period of 12 days. Considering the nature of injuries and a period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and Rs.30,000/- for 'loss of amenities', Rs.30,000/for 'transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges'. The petitioner might not have attended any other work atleast for a period of four months due to the injuries sustained in accident. Therefore, Rs.34,000/- (8500x4) is to be granted under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. The Tribunal has already granted an amount of Rs.90,830/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. Thus in

¶54

all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below:

¶55

Sl. Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future earning capacity	1,83,600/-

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

2	Medical expenses	90,830/-
3	Pain and sufferings	50,000/-
4	Loss of amenities	30,000/-
5	Rest, nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
6	Loss of income during laid up period	34,000/-
	Total	4,18,430/-

¶59

Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,89,430/- to Rs.4,18,430/- . Hence, the appellantclaimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,29,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶60

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) Appeal is allowed in part .

¶63

(ii) The judgment and award dated 10.06.2015 in MVC No.171/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Karkala, is modified;

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28416 MFA No. 1923 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,29,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. instead of Rs.1,89,430/- granted by the Tribunal.

¶67

(iv) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,29,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within one month from the date of this order and on such deposit, the appellantclaimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it.

¶68

(v) The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 159 days as per the order on I.A.No.1/2016 dated 08.04.2019.

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

SMJ

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Shashidhar v. Prajwal J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashidhar v. Prajwal J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Technopak Engineering Vs Sri L Mallikarjun

Sri Vijayakumar Vs the Managing Director

The Manager Vs Sri Sadiqulla

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Nagavelli. N

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Kalavathi

Sri Vishwanatha Acharya Vs the Managing Director M/S Vrl Logistics Ltd.