Sri Manjunatha M Nayak Vs Sri T S Ravi Kumar

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5368/2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA M. NAYAK S/O LATE MANI NAYAK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA NEAR JAYARANI HEALTH CENTRE TALLUR POST KUNDAPURA TALUK-576 217. …APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. T.S. RAVI KUMAR S/O SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT MUNDAGODU ROAD RAVINDRA NAGAR YALLAPUR TALUK KARWAR DISTRICT-581 003.

¶12

JAGADISH SHANKAR POOJARY S/O SHANKARA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NUTHAN NAGAR YALLAPUR TALUK KARWAR DISTRICT-581 003.

¶13

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

BRANCH MOODI COMPLEX HOSPET ROAD, SIRSI POST U.K DISTRICT-574 201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADV., FOR R3 SRI. CHANDRAKANT MARATHA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.06.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1223/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, 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:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the injured claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 04.06.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.1223/2016 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi (sitting at Kundapura) (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶25

Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for

¶26

the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed an

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

error in awarding a meagre compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and attendant charges and it has also not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability on the ground that the claimant continued in his employment. It is submitted that the claimant filed an application for production of additional documents to indicate that the claimant has undergone surgery to remove the implants and has incurred expenses of Rs.35,526/-. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by considering the application for production of additional documents.

¶30

Sri.Ravish Benni, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposed the appeal and submitted that the evidence on record indicates that the claimant continued in his employment after the accident. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly disallowed the claim for compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. It is submitted that the Tribunal, taking note

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

of the three injuries suffered by the claimant, awarded a just compensation. It is further submitted that the appellant has now produced certain documents and the same cannot be accepted on its face value in the absence of any cross-examination by the Insurance Company.

¶34

Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶35

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the claimant met with a

¶37

road accident on 04.10.2016 and sustained the following injuries:

¶38

(1) Right knee is deformed/painful abnormal at distal 1/3 at knee joint.

¶39

(2) Laceration distal-exposing fracture, bone loss

¶40

(3) Abrasion right great toe

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

PW-3, taking note of the treatment provided to the claimant, assessed the disability at 30% in respect of the right leg. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, disallowed the claim of compensation under the head of loss of future earning due to disability on the ground that the claimant has continued to work as a Physical Education Trainer at the Government High School, Uppinakudru. I do not find any error in the aforesaid finding.

¶44

It is to be noticed that the claimant was an inpatient for a period of 8 days and sustained 3 injuries and fractures. Taking note of the same, I am of the view that the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and other miscellaneous heads is required to be enhanced appropriately. Instead of enhancing a meagre amount on the above said heads, ends of justice would be met if an additional compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded on the aforesaid heads.

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

It is to be noticed that the appellant filed an

¶48

application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for production of additional documents i.e. medical bills and discharge summary of Chinmayi Hospital. A perusal of the discharge summary indicates that the appellant was admitted in the hospital again on 10.09.2019 and discharged on 12.09.2019 for the purpose of removal of implants which were inserted at the time of surgery. The evidence on record indicates that the appellant has undergone surgery and implants were inserted and those implants were removed on 10.09.2019. The bills annexed to the application also corroborates with the discharge summary. Taking note of the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application and considering the bills produced, I am of the view that the actual amount incurred by the appellant is required to be reimbursed. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.35,526/- as claimed in the application. In total, the appellant would be entitled to the compensation of

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Rs.75,526/- in addition to what is awarded by the

¶52

Tribunal.

¶53

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶54

following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶57

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 04.06.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.1223/2016 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.75,526/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

c) The additional compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶59

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19255 M.F.A. No.5368/2018

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant.

¶63

Draw the modified award accordingly.

¶64

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶65

RV

¶66

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri Manjunatha M Nayak v. Sri T S Ravi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha M Nayak v. Sri T S Ravi Kumar

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

K K Nagaraj Vs Manjunath S N

Sri. C.N. Nagaraja Vs M/S. the National Insurance Company Limited

Sri Erappa Havaragi Vs the Divisional Controller

Prakash Gandhi Vs Dr. Srinivasan

Deeksha S Vs Govindagowda

Raju Vs State of Karnataka