Hrithik K J Vs Lokesha K a

MAJOR, S/O AJJASHETTY BOGRAHALLI, KOPPALU VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 118 (OWNER OF BAJAJ PULSAR BIKE BEARING NO.KA-12-Q-4420)

¶16

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, VENKATESHWARA BUILDING B.M. ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶17

&RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2025, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.03.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1223/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MVC No.1223/2019 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Hassan, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

retained as before the Tribunal for the sake of

¶30

convenience.

¶31

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an

¶32

accident on 12.06.2019 and filed a petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.14,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this appeal and mainly contended that the petitioner was aged 19 years, doing agriculture work and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW-2, an Orthopaedic Surgeon and he assessed the disability to the right leg at 21.94% and PW-3, Head of Ophthalmology Department, HIMS, Hassan assessed 30% disability to the eyes of the petitioner as per the directions of the Medical board. It is further contended that the Tribunal has taken the income as Rs.14,000/- per month which is on the lower side and

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under other heads are meager. The petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of 28 days and thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶36

Though the petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2019, the Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as Rs.14,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the same is confirmed. The petitioner was aged 20 years and the relevant multiplier applicable is 18.

¶37

The petitioner has filed Ex.P8 - Wound certificate, Ex.P11 - copy of the discharge summary, medical prescriptions under Ex.P9 and dental image copy under Ex.P12. The petitioner also examined two doctors.

¶38

PW-2, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and he stated that the petitioner sustained swelling, tenderness

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

and deformity of the right leg, associated with fracture of both bones of the leg. He further stated that the petitioner sustained a severe head injury and crush injury to the toes, associated with fracture and bone loss of the left great toe. He operated the petitioner for fracture of both bones of the right leg with interlocking nailing under general anesthesia. He has further deposed that the fractured bones of the left leg have completely united and the implants are in situ. The left great toe of the petitioner is in varus deformity. The petitioner complains of pain while walking long distances and running. He has assessed the limb disability at 21.94%.

¶42

The petitioner has also examined PW-3, an Ophthalmologist and Head of the Department of Ophthalmology, Government Hospital, Hassan. The petitioner was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of vision disability and was examined by PW-3 and they have assessed that vision difficulty in both eyes is at 30%. Ex.P20 is the Outpatient record, Ex.P21 and

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Ex.P22 are online applications. PW-3 is not the treated doctor. Therefore, considering the medical evidence of both the doctors, this court finds it reasonable to take one-third of 21.94% as 7% and add 30% towards visual disability assessing the total disability at 37% for the purpose of calculation. As the disability is more than 20%, the petitioner is entitled for future prospects as per the citation reported in MFA No.103807/2016 New India Assurance Company and Others Vs. Abdul S/o. Mehaboob Tahasildar and others . The petitioner was aged 20 years, therefore, he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. Accordingly, loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.14,000/- + 40% x 12 x 18 x 37% = Rs.15,66,432/- . The Tribunal has granted Rs.5,30,000/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. The petitioner was in hospital for a period of 28 days. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and the said amount is confirmed. Considering the nature of injuries,

¶46

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other work atleast for a period of 4 months. Therefore, Rs.56,000/- (Rs.14,000/- x 4) is granted under the head loss of income during laid up period. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.80,000/- towards Future medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed.

¶49

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below:

¶50

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Loss of future earningcapacity	15,66,432
Pain and suffering	1,00,000
Loss of amenities	50,000
Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	50,000
Loss of income duringlaid up period	56,000
Medical Expenses	5,30,000
Future Medical Expenses	80,000
Total	24,32,432

¶51

8 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶55

total compensation of Rs.24,32,432/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶56

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

ii. The judgment and award dated 03.08.2023 passed in MVC No.1223/2019, by II Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Hassan, is modified;

¶60

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.24,32,432 /- along with interest at 6% p.a as from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.14,78,000/granted by the tribunal.

¶61

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:21105 MFA No. 3076 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

iv. Respondent No.2 has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.9,54,432/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶64

v. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶65

vi. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delay period of 172 days as per the order on I.A.No.1/2024 dated 04.08.2025.

¶66

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶67

SHS

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

Hrithik K J v. Lokesha K a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrithik K J v. Lokesha K a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sakamma Vs Sri. Rangappa C

Smt. Lakshmi v Vs Sri Vikram Chandrashekaran Natarajan @ Vikram

Revathi Vs the Managing Director

Chandrahasa D C Vs Mohammad Noushad Melthodi

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Regional Manager

Sri Sridhara M P Vs Sri Mahadevaiah