Mr. Rajesh Alias Ranjith Vs Mr. Arjun Ram

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5395/2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

MR. RAJESH ALIAS RANJITH S/O LATE NARAYANA BELCHADA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. JANAKI NILAYA SARASWATHI COLONY KOLYA, KOTEKAR POST SOMESHWARA, MANGALURU D.K.DISTRICT 575023.

¶9

(BY SRI. JEEVAN K, ADV.,)

¶10

&APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

MR. ARJUN RAM ADULT S/O KHIYA RAM R/O. LAMBA, BILLARA JODHPUR 342602.

¶13

THE MANAGER

¶14

THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD., LOCAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU 575003

¶15

&RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M.V. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR R2 V/O/DTD:31.07.2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24/11/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1320/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 24.11.2017 passed in MVC.No.1320/2015 by the MACT and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. (for short 'Tribunal').

¶24

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

¶25

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

¶26

Sri.Jeevan K., learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

appellant submits that the appellant was working as a peon in Bhagavathi Co-operative Bank, Market road

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

branch, Mangaluru and due to disability, he has left the employment. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing both the income and the extent of disability of the appellant and that such assessments are contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that award

¶31

of compensation on all other heads is very meager which requires appropriate enhancement. It is also submitted that no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶32

Per contra, Sri.M.V.Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal, after making permissible deductions, has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.10,000/- per month and has rightly assessed the disability at 7%, which does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the award of compensation under the head of pain and suffering is on the higher side, which can be adjusted towards the non-

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

award of compensation under the head of loss of amenities. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶37

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

¶38

The point that arises for consideration in this

¶39

appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶40

The material on record indicates that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road accident dated 04.03.2015 and took treatment at Sahara Hospital, where he was admitted as an inpatient for a period of 5 days. In support of his injuries and disability, he examined himself as PW1 and also examined PW2, Dr.Vikram Shetty. A perusal of the oral testimony of PW2 and the disability certificate at Ex.P9 indicates that the doctor has opined that the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

right hand fingers and assessed the disability at 51% to the whole body. However, the Tribunal after considering other medical records has assessed the disability at 7%. In my considered view, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability. The Ex.P5, wound certificate issued by

¶44

Sahara Hospital indicates the following injuries:

¶45

"1) Lacerated wound measuring 1cm x 1cm x bone deep over the writ of right side.

¶46

2) Crush injury of right hand (dorsal aspect) with underlying fracture of proximal phalanx of 2^nd finger. And dislocation of PP joint right hand.

¶47

3) Proximal Phalanx dislocation with fracture of 3^rd finger of right hand.

¶48

4) Fracture of middle phalanx of 4^th finger of right hand."

¶49

Considering the aforesaid injuries and the

¶50

observations of PW2, I am of the considered view that the disability is required to be reassessed. Accordingly, the same is reassessed at 17% to the whole body for the purpose of determination of compensation.

¶51

Insofar as the income of the injured appellant is

¶52

concerned, the appellant himself has deposed before the

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Tribunal and in addition, he examined PW3, who is an official of the Co-operative Society where he was working and he has produced the salary certificate at Ex.P8. The aforesaid certificate clearly indicates that the net salary drawn by the appellant was Rs.11,537/- which is required

¶56

to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of compensation. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 37 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 15, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability as under:

¶57

Rs.11,537 X 12 X 15 X 17% = Rs.3,53,032/-.

¶58

9. Having reassessed the income and disability of

¶59

the injured appellant and considering the nature of treatment undergone by him, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of attendant charges, conveyance charges etc., as

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

well as loss of income during the treatment period requires appropriate enhancement. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering, medical expenses and future medical expenses remains unaltered. The Tribunal has also failed to award any compensation under the head of loss of amenities, to which the appellant is entitled as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶63

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	70,000
Loss of amenities	40,000
Medical expenses	38,000
Loss of income during treatment period (Rs.11537 X 3)	34,611
Loss of future income due to disability	3,53,032
Attendant charges, food and extra nourishing & conveyance etc.	10,000
Future medical expenses	2,000
Total	5,47,643

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:12792 M.F.A. No.5395/2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 5,47,643 /- as against Rs.2,70,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶67

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

a) Appeal stands allowed in part .

¶70

b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 5,47,643 /- as against Rs.2,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71