Allowed

Shankara Naik v. Govindappa Naik

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026MFA/6292/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injured mason appealed for enhancement of accident compensation. Court recomputed loss of future earning capacity at 7% disability with multiplier 13 on notional income of Rs.14,000 per month, enhanced heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation and laid-up income, awarding Rs.4,45,575 with 6% interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shankara Naik Vs Govindappa Naik — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21380 MFA No. 6292 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6292 OF 2025 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANKARA NAIK S/O LAKSHMANAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KADAMALAKUNTE THANDA, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. K. SHANTHA RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GOVINDAPPA NAIK

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

S/O CHAMPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNDARLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK - 561 202.

¶17

ICICI LOMBARD GEN.INS.CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068, BY ITS MANEGER.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2025, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21380 MFA No. 6292 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 22.05.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 538/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, PAVAGADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 22.05.2025 passed in MVC No.538/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Pavagada, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶26

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

¶27

for the sake of convenience.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21380 MFA No. 6292 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 17.12.2019 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,91,735/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the petitioner/injured was aged 45 years at the time of the accident and was working as a mason, earning Rs.35,000/- per month. But the Tribunal erred in taking his income at Rs.14,000/- per month. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW.2 and he assessed the disability at 25% to the limb and 10% to the whole body. The petitioner was admitted as an inpatient for 20 days. Considering his occupation as a mason, the functional disability ought to have been taken at 100%. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that the doctor assessed the disability of both limbs at 20% and 1/3^rd of the same can be taken as 7%. As per the PAN card, the petitioner’s date of birth is 01.01.1970. The accident occurred

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:21380 MFA No. 6292 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

on 17.12.2019 and thus the petitioner was aged 49 years, 11 months and 15 days as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered his age as 49 years and applied the multiplier of ‘13’ and it is to be confirmed.

¶36

Though the petitioner/injured stated that he was earning Rs.35,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2019, the Tribunal has rightly considered his notional income as Rs.14,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The age of the petitioner is 49 years and the relevant multiplier is '13'. The petitioner filed Ex.P.5- Wound certificate, Ex.P.11-Out patience record, Ex.P.12-Lab report and Ex.P.9-OPD slip. Petitioner also examined the doctor as CW.1. As per Ex.P.5-Wound certificate, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as follows:

¶37

"1) 3 cm x 5 cm lacerated wound over right leg with fracture of both the bones of right leg,

¶38

2) Fracture at left wrist lower end and radius,

¶39

3) 2 x 4 cm cut lacerated wound of left ear pinna, and

¶40

4) 1 x 1 cm lacerated would over forehead".

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21380 MFA No. 6292 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

He underwent Orthopedic surgery in A.R. Ortho Center, Hindupur on 17-12-2019 surges five fracture of bones of right leg and fracture of lower and left redius. He was inpatient for 6 days. The Doctor assessed the permanent disability of right leg at 10%, left leg is 15% and 10% of whole body. The doctor has taken 1/3^rd of 20% i.e., as 6.70%. But it is to be taken as 7%. Accordingly, the 'loss of future earning capacity' comes to Rs.1,52,880/- (14,000/- x 12 x 13 x 7%). The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,45,695/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that apart from 6 days he was also admitted in the hospital for 15 days in Pavagad hospital. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factor, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- 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 3 months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.14,000 x 3) awarded under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period'.

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21380 MFA No. 6292 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶48

as below:

¶49

Particulars Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering 50,000.00
Medical expenses 1,45,695.00
Transportation, extra 30,000.00
nourishment and attendant
charges
Loss of income during laid up 42,000.00
period
Loss of future earning 1,52,880.00
capacity
Loss of amenities 25,000.00
Total 4,45,575.00

¶50

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶51

compensation of Rs.4,45,575/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶52

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21380 MFA No. 6292 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ii. The judgment and award dated 22.05.2025 passed in MVC No.538/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Pavagada, is modified.

¶58

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,45,575/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,91,735/- granted by the tribunal.

¶59

iv. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.53,840/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶62

AMA,AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Shankara Naik v. Govindappa Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shankara Naik v. Govindappa Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavya B S Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri a Madhan Vs Smt Sushma H D

Hrithik K J Vs Lokesha K a

Sri Joshua D Vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri. Ankappa Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri Aruna I B Vs Sri Kumar C