Sunil H.N. Vs Narasimhamurthy P.H.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3162 OF 2024 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUNIL H.N. S/O NARAYANAMURTHI H D NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A HOSEKERE VILLAGE HAGALAVADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT NOW R/A C/O MUNIYAPPA, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, TUMAKURU CITY

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

NARASIMHAMURTHY P.H. S/O HUCHAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A KEMPANAHALLI PINNENAHALLI, HOSAKERE POST, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

¶14

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, JAYADEVA COMPLEX, P B NO 54, B H ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY-572 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

V/O DATED 04.03.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.142/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The tribunal had passed a common award in MVC No.142/2013 c/w MVC No.141/2013 and this appeal is filed against the award of the tribunal in MVC No.142/2013 dated 03.06.2023 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Tumakuru , for enhancing the compensation.

¶24

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶25

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Injured claimant met with an accident on 05.09.2012 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-. But the tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.9,27,000/-. with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

¶29

Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the petitioner was doing mason work and earning Rs.14,000/- per month and he examined the doctor as PW2 and assessed the whole body disability as 30%. But the Tribunal erred in taking the disability as 15%. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under other heads are on lower side. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent stated that the tribunal gave reasoning for taking the disability as 15% in paragraph No.14 of the judgment, therefore, the disability taken by the tribunal is to be confirmed. though the petitioner stated that he was working as mason and

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

earning Rs.14000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2012, Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month and it is confirmed. He was aged 23 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘18’.

¶34

The petitioner filed Ex.P5/Wound Certificate and Exs.P20 and P21 are the discharge summaries and also filed other medical reports. Apart from that, he examined PW3/doctor and he is a surgeon and he stated that petitioner sustained traumatic quadripareisis due to cervical cord injury i.e. C5. Further, PW3 has stated that there is weakness of both upper and lower limbs, abrasions on face. The injured was investigated and found to have fracture of C-5 vertebra with cord compression. Further, the injured was admitted in ICU and underwent discectomy and decompression of fractured C-5 vertebra. Post-operatively, he was treated with physiotherapy and supportive treatment was advised to continue physiotherapy and other supportive treatment for residual

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

weakness. As per the x-ray, the fracture united with implant in situ. The injured was unable to bend his neck forward, has mild weakness of left lower limb and requires support to walk. Accordingly, assessed the permanent partial disability to the whole body at 30%. The Tribunal observed that he is not a neurosurgeon or an orthopedic surgeon and admittedly fractures are united with implants in situ. Disability is to be assessed after removal of the implants and doctor has not stated about the disability of the particular limb. Thus, he excessively assessed the disability. Therefore, the tribunal has taken only 15%. As per Ex.P5/Wound certificate he sustained traumatic quadripareisis due to cervical cord injury i.e. C5 and it is grievous in nature. The petitioner was a mason, as per the medical evidence, the whole body disability is assessed at 30%, therefore this court finds it is just and reasonable to take disability as 20%. Further, petitioner is entitled for future prospects, as the diability is 20% as per the citation in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Abdul,

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

son of Mehaboob Tahasildar and Others (M.F.A.

¶41

No.103807/2016 c/w. M.F.A. No.103835/2016 decided on 27.05.2022). The petitioner was aged 23 years, therefore he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects. Hence, loss of future earning capacity is calculated as Rs.7000 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 20% = Rs.4,23,360/-. An amount of Rs.6,09,081/- was granted towards medical expenses as per Ex.P16 and it is confirmed. The petitioner was hospitalised for a period of 18 days. Hence, considering his occupation, age, period of hospitalisation, nature of injuries and other relevant factors, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- is granted towards loss of amenities, Rs.30,000 /- is granted towards for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, petitioner might not have attended any other work for a period of 4 months, therefore, Rs.28,000/- is granted under the head loss of income during laid-up.

¶42

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are

¶45

as below,

¶46

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future earning capacity	4,23,360
2	Pain and suffering	75,000
3	Loss of amenities	50,000
4	Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	30,000
5	Loss of income during laid down period	28,000
6	Medical bills	6,09,081
	Total	12,15,441

¶47

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is

¶48

enhanced from Rs.9,27,000/- to Rs.12,15,441 /- along

¶49

with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶50

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

ii. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.142/2013 dated 03.06.2023 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Tumakuru, is modified.

¶56

iii. The claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,15,441/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.9,27,000/granted by the tribunal.

¶57

iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has

¶58

already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of

¶59

Rs.2,88,441/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶60

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:22296 MFA No. 3162 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

v. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶63

vi. On 04.03.2025, the delay of 198 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period.

¶64

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶65

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Sunil H.N. v. Narasimhamurthy P.H.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil H.N. v. Narasimhamurthy P.H.

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

Mr Bharath v S Vs Mr Mahesha

Sri Naveenkumar B T Vs Sri Prakash Gowda K S

Chandrashekara Vs the Manager

Sri Srinivasa Vs the Managing Director

The Manager Vs a C Balegowda

Sri Manjunath N Vs Mr. Allisab Mirji