Dismissed¶46

Sri Udaya Naik v. Sri Srinivas Devadiga

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026MFA/4649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident compensation enhancement — MFA u/s 173(1) MV Act against MVC No.26/2014 (Addl. District Judge & Addl. MACT, Udupi/Kundapura) — sole ground: disability wrongly applied in loss of future earning capacity — Tribunal applied 28% permanent whole-body disability (Doctor P.W.2) to annual income Rs.3,300 x 12 = Rs.39,600/-, i.e. Rs.11,088/-, with multiplier 18 per Schedule II (age 27) = Rs.1,99,584/- — appellant's counsel conceded 28% was awarded — challenge unsustainable — appeal dismissed, no costs, award of Rs.2,46,000/- with 6% p.a. interest upheld — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, 12.02.2026 — Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. — NC: 2026:KHC:8742.

What did the court decide?

None; the claim for enhancement of compensation was rejected and the Impugned Award stands undisturbed. ¶46

Sri Udaya Naik Vs Sri Srinivas Devadiga — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:8742 MFA No. 4649 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4649 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. UDAYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O BEEMA NAIK, R/AT CHIKKUMANE, ANAGALLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 211.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. SRINIVAS DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O RAMA DEVADIGA, R/AT HOTEBAILU, NUJADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 2331.

¶12

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHANKAR BUILDING, MASJID ROAD, UDUPI - 576 101 REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:8742 MFA No. 4649 of 2018

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SRI. NAGESH MOGAVEERA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O BEENA NAIK, CHIKKUMANE, ANAGALLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 211.

¶17

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICEE, VISHNU PRAKASH , COURT ROAD, UDUPI - 576 101, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. HARINI SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08/01/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.26/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, (SITTING AT KUNDAP URA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

The present appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking to challenge Judgment and Award dated 08.01.2018 in MVC

¶24

No.26/2014 passed by the Additional District Judge and

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:8742 MFA No. 4649 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Additional MACT, Udupi, Kundapura [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”].

¶29

By the Impugned Award, the appellant-petitioner has

¶30

been awarded a compensation of Rs.2,46,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he has challenged the appeal only on the ground of quantum. He submits that while awarding the loss of future earning capacity, the disability has been wrongly awarded.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 – Insurance Company however, submits that the evidence of the Doctor has shown that the petitioner had 28% permanent disability and the 'calculation of the disability' as set out in paragraph No.20 of the Impugned Award shows that 28% permanent disability has been taken by the learned Tribunal.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:8742 MFA No. 4649 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

A review of the Impugned Award shows that the Tribunal has, infact, taken the disability at 28% while calculating the loss of future earning capacity / annual income of the petitioner in the following manner:

¶37

"20. The evidence of Doctor P.W.2 goes to show that petitioner is having 28% permanent disability in respect to his whole body. Basing on the said percentage of disability, this Tribunal proceeds to assess the loss of future earning capacity of the petitioner. As discussed above, the petitioner was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Thereby, annual income of the petitioner works out to Rs.3,300 x

¶38

12 = Rs.39,600/-. Out of this 28% works out to

¶39

Rs.39,600/- x 28/100 = Rs.11,088/-. As per the medical records the petitioner's age was 27 years at the time of accident. To this age, the proper multiplier would be applicable as per Schedule II of M.V Act is 18. If annual earning capacity to this multiplier is applied, then the loss of future earning capacity of the petitioner works out to Rs.11,088 x 18 = Rs.1,99,584/-, for which, the petitioner is entitled towards loss of future earning capacity."

¶40

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶41