Sri.Basavaraju Vs Sri.Kumarswamy M S

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3670 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. BASAVARAJU SON OF LATE HUCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF MARASHETTIHALLI AT AND POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 225. NOW RESIDING AT C/O GANGADHAR. S.C., SIDDAPPANA PALYA, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 120.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. KUMAR K.R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. KUMARSWAMY M.S. SON OF SIDDAPPA M.A PRESENT AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BASAVANAPURA B.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083.

¶14

THE MANAGER, H.D.F.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., 1ST FLOOR, H.M. GENEVA HOUSE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 052.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. Y.P. VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.03.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.619/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, COURT OF FAST TRACK, TUMKUR, 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 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 15.11.2014 passed in MVC No.619/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Court of Fast Track, Tumkur, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 16.12.2011 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,16,318/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the Tribunal has not awarded the entire medical expenses incurred by the appellant and no amount has been awarded towards future medical expenses. The appellant also stated that no compensation has been awarded towards the damage caused to his vehicle TVS XL Super bearing Registration No.KA-06-X-8057, though he had claimed a sum of

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Rs.8,000/- under the said head. PW.2-doctor has assessed the disability. But the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability on the lower side. The doctor has also stated that the appellant requires a sum of Rs.40,000/- for removal of the implants and the appellant was hospitalized for more than ten days. The Tribunal has granted meagre amount under the other heads. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

Though the petitioner was stated that he was doing agricultural work and carpentry work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2011, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.6,500/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner mentioned his age as 52 years. But in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.10, his age is shown as 65 years. The said information was given by the petitioner's son himself. Accordingly, the Tribunal has taken the age of the

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

petitioner as 65 years. Learned counsel for the

¶39

respondents stated that even in the FIR, the age of the petitioner is shown as 65 years. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the age assessed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the relevant multiplier is '7'. The petitioner has produced wound certificate, prescriptions and case sheet. He has also examined the doctor as PW.2

¶40

and he is an Orthopaedic Surgeon stated that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:

¶41

"1. Segmental fracture shaft left femur below middle third

¶42

2. Patella fracture left

¶43

3. Superficial abrasion over left hand

¶44

4. Punctured wound over medial aspect of left thigh."

¶45

The petitioner was initially treated with Thomas splint application and conservatively for haemodynamic stabilization. His fracture left femur was treated with CRIF with distal femoral interlocking nail and partial patellectomy under SAB. He was complaining pain in left thigh and left knee with deformity of left knee, difficulty to

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

squat on floor, limping on left side and difficulty to work

¶49

for long time due to pain. On examination he found wasting of the thigh, shortening of the lower limb by about half an inch is of femoral component, antalgic gait present on left side and tenderness present over left femur in its distal third and patella. It is difficult for the petitioner to squat, kneel down, stand and climb the stairs. As per the X-ray of the left femur, there was healed segmented fracture. The petitioner requires another surgery for removal of the implants and estimated cost of the surgery is Rs.40,000/-. It is further stated that he has to be in the hospital for ten days. On clinical and radiological observations, he opined that the petitioner has got 16% to 18% disability for the left hip joint, 18% to 20% disability for left knee joint and whole body disability at 14% to 16%.

¶50

6. Considering the medical evidence on record, the

¶51

disability assessed for the left hip joint 16% to 18% and left knee joint is 18% to 20%. Taking 1/3^rd of the same

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(18%+20%=38%) comes to 12.6%, which is rounded off

¶55

to 13%. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to assess the disability at 13% to the whole body. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.70,980/- (6,500x12x7x13%). The petitioner was admitted in the hospital for a period of 15 days. The Tribunal has already granted a sum of Rs.45,718/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner incurred a sum of Rs.50,022/- towards medical expenses. This Court finds it reasonable to award the said amount towards medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, his occupation and other relevant factors, this Court finds it just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any other work at least for a period of four months, due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

¶56

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Therefore, a sum of Rs.26,000/- (6,500x4) is to be granted under the head loss of income during laid up period. As per the medical evidence, this Court also finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses.

¶59

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

¶60

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	60,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses	50,022/-
3	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
4.	Towards loss of amenities	30,000/-
5	Towards loss of income during the laid up period	26,000/-
6	Towards future medical expenses	40,000/-
7	Towards loss of future earning capacity	70,980/-
	Total	3,07,002/-

¶61

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a

¶64

total compensation of Rs.3,07,002/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶65

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶68

ii. The judgment and award dated 15.11.2014 passed in MVC No.619/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Court of Fast Track, Tumkur, is modified.

¶69

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,07,002/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.1,16,318/granted by the Tribunal.

¶70

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has

¶71

already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent

¶72

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:27077 MFA No. 3670 of 2015

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.1,90,684/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶75

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

¶76

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶77

AMA

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri.Basavaraju v. Sri.Kumarswamy M S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Basavaraju v. Sri.Kumarswamy M S

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

Sri. Ningamaraiah Vs Sri. Srikantaiah

Enock Braganz Vs Ganesh K N

Smt. Lakshminarasamma Vs Sri Arasaiah

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mohammed Riaz

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mohammed Hanief

Smt Ramanjanamma Vs Smt R Manjula