Sri S. Ramesh Vs Sri v Srinivasa

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:15409 M.F.A. No.3266/2020

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3266/2020 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. S. RAMESH S/O K.V. MAHALINGHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.177/B, MILK COLONY SUBRAMANYANAGAR BANGALORE-560021.

¶8

Digitally signed BANGALORE-560021. by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: Location: HIGH COURT OF FLAT NO.B5-504, KAILASH KARNATAKA JNANABHARATHI RESIDENTIAL ENCLAVE VALAGERAHALLI, KENGERI BENGALURU-560 059.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MURTHY M.V. ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. V. SRINIVASA S/O K. VENKATACHALAM MAJOR, R/A NO.81, 1ST CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD, K K LAYOUT PAPAREDDY PALYA MALLATHAHALLI BANGALORE-560072.

¶13

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NO.25, SHANKAR NARAYANA BUILDING

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15409 M.F.A. No.3266/2020

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

NOW PRESENTLY AT: 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR KRUSHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V/C/O/DTD:09.12.2022)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.1134/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, 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 MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 09.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.1134/2007 by the VII Additional Small

¶25

Causes Court Judge and XXXII ACMM, Member MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-03), (for short 'the Tribunal').

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:15409 M.F.A. No.3266/2020

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

¶30

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶31

Sri.Murthy M.V., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability by ignoring the oral evidence of the appellant and other documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the appellant was hospitalized as an inpatient for 9 days and underwent two surgeries. It is further submitted that considering the fractures sustained, the nature of injuries and the treatment provided to the appellant, the appeal is required to be allowed by enhancing the compensation appropriately.

¶32

Per contra, Sri.M.Arun Ponappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has rightly considered the

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15409 M.F.A. No.3266/2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

evidence available on record. It is submitted that the reason at paragraph No.19 of the judgment clearly indicates that the appellant continued in his employment even after the accident and for the non-working days, the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss

¶36

of income during the laid-up period. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation under the heads of loss of amenities and pain and suffering. Hence, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation and therefore, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record including Tribunal records.

¶38

The parties to the proceedings do not dispute that the appellant met with a road accident on 20.12.2006 and was provided treatment as is evident from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and other material available on record. The doctor has assessed the disability at 30% to

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15409 M.F.A. No.3266/2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the particular limb and 10% to the whole body. It is averred that the injured was earning Rs.21,452/- per month from his employment. The evidence on record indicates that even after the accident, the appellant continued in his employment and there is no loss of income. In view of the evidence on record in that regard, the Tribunal was fully justified in declining to award any compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. However, considering the nature of the injuries and fractures extracted by the Tribunal in paragraph No.13 of the judgment and taking note of Ex.P5, the wound certificate and oral testimony of PW2, the doctor, I am of the view that the compensation awarded under the head of future medical expenses and other heads are required to be enhanced appropriately. Instead of enhancing the meagre compensation under each of the heads awarded by the Tribunal, it would be appropriate to award an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant is

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15409 M.F.A. No.3266/2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

entitled to an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

¶45

The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The additional compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶46

In modification of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal stands partly allowed . The respondent/insurer shall deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant. Registry is directed to transmit the Tribunal records forthwith and draw modified award accordingly.

¶47

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶48

ABK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri S. Ramesh v. Sri v Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S. Ramesh v. Sri v Srinivasa

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

Suresh Vs Manjegowda

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

Mr Sukumara Vs Mr Safiq Sahil

Chethan Kumar H N Vs Suresh Kumar H N

Sri Muniyappa Vs the Manager

Marulamma Vs Punith B