Allowed

Sri Shivaramu v. Smt Moksha Suresh

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2026MFA/6702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a first appeal against an award for motor accident compensation. The court modified the tribunal's award, enhancing the disability percentage for loss of future earning capacity and adding amounts for transportation and attendant charges.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.4,87,750 to Rs.5,49,790 with 6% p.a. interest; Rs.62,040 deposit directed to insurance company.

Sri Shivaramu Vs Smt Moksha Suresh — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:18486 MFA No. 6702 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6702 OF 2025 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SHIVARAMU S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KARIGOWDANA KOPPALU VILLAGE, KOWDLE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT MOKSHA SURESH W/O SURESH M, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 35/1 ALADAHALLI VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, (OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG. NO. KA-12-9588)

¶15

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.3, 1^ST FLOOR, NORTH WING, MANANDI PLAZA, ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. (POLICY NO. 140821-923340008201 POLICY VALID FROM 20/07/2019 TO 19/07/2020)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:18486 MFA No. 6702 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD 05.01.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.02.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2173/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-8), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 03.02.2025 passed in MVC No.2173/2020 on the file of the XII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

¶25

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶26

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18486 MFA No. 6702 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Injured claimant met with an accident on 24.12.2019 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30 lakhs. The Tribunal considering entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.4,87,750/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realisation.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and mainly contended that he sustained grevious injuries and the doctor assessed the disability of left arm as 41% and the whole body as 14%, but the tribunal erred in taking the disability as 12% which is on lower side. Further, the future prospects are not added and higher rate of interest is to be granted. Thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent stated that the Tribunal rightly observed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner will not have any impact on his work and hence taken the disability as 12% to the whole body and it needs no interference.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:18486 MFA No. 6702 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The petitioner stated that he was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2019, the Tribunal rightly considered his notional income as Rs.14,000/- per month. He was aged 41 years and the multiplier taken is ‘14’. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate. The petitioner sustained left side Acromio Clavicular joint disruption. He underwent Open Reduction and Left AC Joint stabilization with Suture anchor. Petitioner also examined doctor as PW3 doctor stated that the petitioner has weakness of the left shoulder and facing difficulty to do agricultural work. Petitioner has restricted left shoulder movements and weakness in the left shoulder. He assessed 41% disability to the left arm and 12% as whole body disability. PW3 stated that as per the recent x-ray left shoulder joint shows reduced left AC joint dislocation with implants in situ. Therefore, this court finds it reasonable to take 1/3^rd of 41% i.e., 14% instead of 12% for the purpose of calculation. So the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.14,000 x 12 x 14 x 14% = Rs.3,29,280/-. The petitioner incurred Rs.13,510/- towards medical expenses and tribunal granted the said amount and the

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18486 MFA No. 6702 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

same is confirmed. The petitioner was inpatient for a period of 15 days. Tribunal already granted Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.25,000 /- for loss of amenities. The said amounts are confirmed. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and other relevant factors, he is also entitled for Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, the Tribunal granted Rs.42,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and it is confirmed. It was further stated that the petitioner was travelling on bullock cart and the tribunal has already granted special allowance of Rs.60,000/- and the said amount is confirmed.

¶39

Thus in all, components awarded by this court are

¶40

as below,

¶41

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of future earning capacity	3,29,280
2	Medical bills	13,510
2	Pain and suffering	50,000
3	Loss of amenities	25,000
4	Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.	30,000

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18486 MFA No. 6702 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

5	Loss of income during laid down period	42,000
6	Special allowance	60,000
	Total	5,49,790

¶45

Hence, the compensation granted by tribunal is

¶46

enhanced from Rs.4,87,750/- to Rs.5,49,790 /- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶47

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

ii. The judgment and award dated 03.02.2025 passed in MVC No.2173/2020 on the file of the XII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, is modified.

¶51

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,49,790/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs. 4,87,750/granted by the tribunal.

¶52

iv. Respondent/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18486 MFA No. 6702 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.62,040/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶56

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

¶57

vi. On 5.1.2026, the delay of 105 days is condoned by this Court on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delayed period.

¶58

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶59

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri Shivaramu v. Smt Moksha Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivaramu v. Smt Moksha Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hemalatha. B. S. Vs Sri. Manjunath. M

Misba Banu Vs Mohammed Abu Saleh

Yogesha Vs Prathapa @ Naveen

Sri H C Sreenivasamurthy Vs the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Nagaraja Gowda Vs Sri N N Guruprasad

Smt Shobha Vs Sri Venkataravana