Partly allowed

Mr Harish v. Mr Lakshmeesha Bhat

Karnataka HC28 Apr 2026MFA/5528/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the miscellaneous first appeal filed by the injured claimant challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The High Court found the Tribunal erred in assessing minimal compensation. It reassessed disability at 15%, set a multiplier of 18, and enhanced total compensation from Rs.1,80,000 to Rs.5,55,900 including medical and future expenses.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,55,900/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

Mr Harish Vs Mr Lakshmeesha Bhat — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:23694 MFA No. 5528 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 5528 OF 2018 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. HARISH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O MANJUNATH R/AT GIRINAGARA KUNJARGIRI POST KURKAL VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MR. LAKSHMEESHA BHAT AGED 26 YEARS S/O MUKUNDA R/AT PAYYADAPADI MOODUBELLE POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD UDUPI TALUK - 576 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.933/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:23694 MFA No. 5528 of 2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.11.2016 passed in M.V.C.No.933/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶22

Heard Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Though the notice was served on the

¶24

respondent No.1, there is no representation.

¶25

This appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking for higher compensation mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and it has failed to award any compensation under the head 'loss of future earning

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23694 MFA No. 5528 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

due to disability' and also not awarded compensation

¶29

under conventional heads.

¶30

It is to be noticed that the appellant met with road accident on 10.03.2014 and he was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and claimed to have been working as stone sculptor and a professional driver. It is claimed that he used to earn Rs.15,000/- p.m. The perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record indicate that the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and also got examined Dr.Nandish Shetty as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but with the consent got marked Ex.R1 - Driving Licence. It is to be noticed that the appellant though claimed that he was working as stone sculptor and as driver, no evidence is placed to substantiate the income. Hence, his income is notionally assessed at Rs.8,500/p.m.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23694 MFA No. 5528 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Insofar as the disability is concerned, the perusal

¶34

of the evidence of PW.2, wound certificate - Ex.P6, discharge summary at Ex.P10, case sheet at Ex.P11, treatment certificate at Ex.P12 and disability certificate at Ex.P13 would indicate the following injuries suffered by the appellant:

¶35

Small focal area lung contusion noted in the apical segment of left lower lobe.

¶36

Fracture condyloid process of bilateral mandibles and mandible in the midline.

¶37

Fracture left zygomatic arch.

¶38

Multiple fractures of the maxilla on both sides, hard palate, lateral wall of the left orbit, left nasal bone, bilateral ethmoid sinuses, right zygomatic bone and left pterigoid bones.

¶39

Avulsion injury upper and lower gums.

¶40

Laceration over lower jaw.

¶41

On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence

¶42

referred supra, PW.2 assessed the disability at 20 to 22%. However, the said assessment of disability is not clear whether it is to a particular limb or to the whole body.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23694 MFA No. 5528 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

However, considering the oral and documentary evidence referred supra, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the disability is assessed at 15% to the whole body and award compensation. The appropriate multiplier would be 18. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 10 days and undergone surgery and post-surgery he was required to take further treatment as outpatient. Considering the aforesaid facts and oral and documentary evidence on record, in my view, the Tribunal has grossly erred in not awarding compensation under medical expenses and by awarding meager compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Hence, I am of the considered view that as per the medical bills placed on record, Rs.1,25,000/- shall be awarded under the head of medical expenses. For the aforementioned reasons, compensation is reassessed as under:

¶46

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Loss of future income due to disability	2,75,400/-
(8500 X 12 X 18 X 15%)

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:23694 MFA No. 5528 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Pain & suffering	40,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	50,000/-
Food, nourishment, transportation and attendant charges	20,000/-
Loss of income during treatment period (Rs.8500 x 3 months)	25,500/-
Medical Expenses	1,25,000/-
Future Medical Expenses	20,000/-
TOTAL	5,55,900/-

¶50

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to

¶51

a total compensation of Rs.5,55,900/- as against Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶52

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶53

following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶56

ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 16.11.2016 passed in MVC.No.933/2014 by the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,55,900/- as against Rs.1,80,000/-.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:23694 MFA No. 5528 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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

¶61

v) Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶62

vi) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.

¶63

vii) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶64

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶65

DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Mr Harish v. Mr Lakshmeesha Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Harish v. Mr Lakshmeesha Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Vs Vishwanath

Smt Surekha Vs Sri Ravindra P

Chennamma Vs Hanumesh P

Sri Arun Pathak Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. M. Jayanthi Vs Danish Nehal M Havaldar

Ms. Shaheda Banu Vs Sri. Chandrashekar N G