Sri Pranesh Bhat Vs Sri Kishor Kumar

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7284/2018 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SRI. PRANESH BHAT S/O SRI. SADANANDA BHAT AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT. 4-H-97A LAND LINKS, NAVANAGARA DEREBAIL, KONCHADY MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575 008.

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R. ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

SRI. KISHOR KUMAR S/O SRI. THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT D.NO.9-6/1, NAVANAGARA NEAR DHOOMAVATHI TEMPLE 7TH BLOCK, KATLA IDYA MANGALURU TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-575 014.

¶13

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER PENENSULA CORPORATION PARK NIKOCHOLOS PIRAMEL TOWER 9TH FLOOR, GANAPATRAO KADAM MARG LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013. …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED)

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶16

2 -

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2018 IN MVC NO.816/2013 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, MANGALURU, D.K., TO THE EXTENT OF DENIAL OF CLAIM, THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION BE ENHANCED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

The injured claimant has filed this appeal challenging

¶23

the judgment and award dated 26.07.2018 passed in MVC.No.816/2013 by the MACT and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, 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.Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant has sustained permanent physical disability as a result of the road accident occurred on 06.01.2013 and due to the said disability he is unable to carry out any work. It is

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

submitted that the injured was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.11,000/- per month, contrary to the documentary evidence placed before it. It is further submitted that, in order to substantiate the disability, the claimant examined PW2 and PW3 and produced documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 11% without assigning any justifiable reason. It is also submitted that the award of compensation on all other conventional heads is also on lower side, which is required to be reassessed appropriately by considering the evidence on record. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶30

Per contra, Sri.Ravi S Samprathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that insofar as the income of the injured claimant is concerned, the Tribunal is fully justified in assessing the same at Rs.11,000/- per month with

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

respect to the income tax returns produced by the injured claimant after the accident and he has failed to produce the income tax returns of the year prior to the accident and later years. Hence, such documents cannot be the sole basis for determining the income of the claimant. It is submitted that the Tribunal considering the oral evidence of the doctor and taking note of the injuries suffered by the claimant, has assessed the disability at 11% which also does not call for any modification. It is further submitted that the award of compensation on all other heads is on a higher side and does not call for enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

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

¶35

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is "whether the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal calls for any interference?"

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The material on record indicates that in a road

¶39

accident dated 06.01.2013, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was provided treatment at A.J. hospital from 06.01.2013 to 01.02.2013 and the injured claimant was an inpatient for a period of 26 days. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.11,000/- per month. The claimant, in order to prove the income has produced income tax returns, which were marked as Ex.P9. The said income tax returns are for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The net total income in the said returns indicate that the income of the injured claimant was Rs.2,31,706/-. It is not in dispute that the said income tax returns were filed after the date of accident. It is also not in dispute that the claimant has failed to produce income tax returns for the year preceding the accident and for the subsequent years. In my considered view, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in deducting the standard deductions from the total

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

income shown in the claimant's income tax returns. However, considering the aforesaid fact and also keeping in mind that the claimant has failed to produce the income tax returns for the previous year and later years of the date of accident, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by reassessing the income of the injured claimant at Rs.15,000/- per month considering his avocation. Accordingly, his income is reassessed at Rs.15,000/- per month, taking into consideration Ex.P9 and his oral testimony.

¶43

Insofar as the disability is concerned, the

¶44

Tribunal has assessed the disability at 11%. It is to be noticed that the injured claimant sustained the following injuries as per Ex.P6:

¶45

"Abrasion, 5cm x 4cm, over back outer aspect of left shoulder, abrasion 3cm x 3cm, over back of left elbow, contusion, 5cm x 4cm, over left side of the back of the head with underlying fracture of occipital bone on left side, contusion, 6cm x 6cm, over right side of the head, just above the ear with underlying fracture of parietal bone, sub dural haematoma over right frontotemporal convexity causing mass effect and

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

midline shift, sub arachnoid haemorrhage and diffuse cerebral edema."

¶50

The aforesaid injuries clearly indicate that they

¶51

are serious in nature and the treated doctors i.e., PW2 and PW3 have deposed with regard to the treatment provided to the injured claimant. The disability certificate at Ex.P10 indicates that after assessing the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the treatment provided, the doctor has assessed the disability at 25%. In my considered view, the Tribunal has committed an error in disbelieving the oral testimony of PW2 and PW3 as well as the disability certificate at Ex.P10. Hence, the disability is required to be reassessed at 25%. However, nothing is on record to come to conclusion that the claimant is unable to continue his avocation after the accident and disability. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and was self-employed doing electrical repair work prior to the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 15, which has been rightly considered by the Tribunal. Hence, the

¶52

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

appellant is entitled to compensation under the head of

¶55

loss of future income due to disability as under:

¶56

Rs.15,000 X 12 X 15 X 25% = Rs.6,75,500/-.

¶57

The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the lesser compensation under other heads which are required to be enhanced appropriately by considering the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,51,735/- towards medical expenses, which is unaltered. Therefore, taking note of the oral and documentary evidence, the appellant is entitled to the modified compensation as under:

¶58

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	80,000
Loss of amenities	40,000
Medical expenses	1,51,735
Loss of income during laid-up period (Rs.15000 X 3)	45,000
Loss of future income due to disability	6,75,500
Attendant charges, food and extra nourishing & conveyance etc.	30,000
Total	10,22,235

¶59

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:12498 M.F.A. No.7284/2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 10,22,235 /- as against Rs.4,43,331/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶62

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

¶63

ORDER

¶64

a) Appeal stands allowed in part .

¶65

b) The impugned judgment and award of the

¶66

Tribunal is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 10,22,235 /- as against Rs.4,43,331/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶67