Allowed

Chandrahasa D C v. Mohammad Noushad Melthodi

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2026MFA/7555/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injured motor accident claimant appealed for enhancement of compensation. Court raised disability from 30% to 40%, added future prospects at 10%, enhanced non-pecuniary heads, and increased total compensation from Rs.10,37,718/- to Rs.14,09,658/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.3,71,940/- with 6% p.a. interest directed to be deposited by insurer within one month.

Chandrahasa D C Vs Mohammad Noushad Melthodi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:20802 MFA No. 7555 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7555 OF 2025 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHANDRAHASA D.C S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.43 NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE MADHU NAGAR, 1^ST WARD DOMMASANDRA, BENGALURU.

¶8

&APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SREENIVASAIAH A, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MOHAMMAD NOUSHAD MELTHODI S/O VEERANKUTTY MELTHODI MELTHODI HOSUE, KOTTEPPARAMBIL NEAR PPMHSS KOTTUKKARA KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM KERALA - 673 638.

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5^TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING NO.28, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

(BY SMT. T.N. MALATHI, ADV., FOR R-2; V/O DT. 23.10.2025, NOTICE TO R-1 D/W)

¶16

&RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 29.04.2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1796/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACJM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, ACJM, BENGALURU (SCCH-22), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:20802 MFA No. 7555 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

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 29.04.2025 passed in MVC No.1796/2022 on the file of the MACT, XX Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru. (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).

¶25

The injured claimant Chandrahasa D.C met with an accident on 05.03.2022 and filed claim petition before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. The tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.10,37,718/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the appellant was doing building contract work and earning ¹50,000/- per month. But the Tribunal had taken the income as ¹15,500/- per month, which is on lower side. He also examined

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20802 MFA No. 7555 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the doctor as PW.3 and he assessed the neurological disability as 43.33% and neurological disability is due to the head injury. The Tribunal has granted meager amounts under the other heads and thus requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶30

Heard the arguments addressed on both sides.

¶31

Though the appellant stated that he was aged 52 years and doing building contract work and earning Rs.50,000/per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2022, the notional income is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. As the appellant was aged 52 years at the time of accident, the relevant multiplier is '11'.

¶32

The appellant has produced Ex.P.7 wound certificate and inpatient records under Ex.P.18 and he has also produced CT scan films, clinical notes, Neuro psychological assessment report, MRI report and MRI films. The appellant has also examined the Doctor as PW.3 and the Doctor assessed the disability as neurological disability to the extent of 43.33%. It was observed by the Tribunal that the appellant personally

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20802 MFA No. 7555 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

appeared before the Court and he was cross-examined and gave rational answers. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the neurological disability to the whole body as 30%. But this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability as 40%. As the disability is more than 20% the appellant is entitled for future prospects as per the decision in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR in MFA No.103807 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103835 of 2016 DTD. 27.05.2022. As the appellant is aged 52 years he is entitled for 10% future prospects. Accordingly, the 'Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability' comes to Rs.9,00,240/- (Rs.15,500 + 10% ×12×11×40%=Rs.8,18,400/- = Rs.9,00,240/-).

¶36

The amount granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses of Rs.2,84,418/- is confirmed. The claimant was in the hospital for a period of fifteen days. Therefore, this Court deems fit to award compensation of Rs.75,000/- under the head <Pain and Suffering=, Rs.28,000/- under the head 'Attendant, food, nourishment and conveyance charges' and Rs.60,000/- under the head "Loss of Amenities". Considering

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20802 MFA No. 7555 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

the nature of injuries sustained and period of hospitalization, this Court finds that the claimant might not have attended any other work at least for a period of four months. Therefore, the compensation under the head of 'loss of income during laid up period' comes to Rs.62,000/- (Rs.15,500 x 4 months). Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is as below :-

¶40

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability	9,00,240/-
2	Towards pain and sufferings	75,000/-
3	Towards loss of Amenities	60,000/-
4	Towards attendant, food, nourishment, and conveyance charges	28,000/-
5	Towards loss of income during laid up period	62,000/-
6	Towards medical expenses	2,84,418/-
7	Total	Rs.14,09,658/-
8	Total compensation awarded by tribunal	Rs.10,37,718/-
9	Enhanced compensation (14,09,658/- - 10,37,718/-)	Rs.3,71,940/-

¶41

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.10,37,718/-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled to total

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:20802 MFA No. 7555 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

compensation of Rs.14,09,658/-. Therefore, the

¶46

appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,71,940/- (Rs.14,09,658/- - Rs.10,37,718/-).

¶47

The Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Hence, respondent No.2Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,71,940/- before the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., within one month from the date of this order.

¶48

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶51

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2025 passed in M.V.C.No.1796/2022 by the MACT, XX Addl. judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM, Bengaluru is hereby modified holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,71,940/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20802 MFA No. 7555 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.3,71,940/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, before the Tribunal, within a period of one month from the date of this order.

¶55

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

¶56

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶57

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶58

NMS

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Chandrahasa D C v. Mohammad Noushad Melthodi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrahasa D C v. Mohammad Noushad Melthodi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sakamma Vs Sri. Rangappa C

Smt. Lakshmi v Vs Sri Vikram Chandrashekaran Natarajan @ Vikram

Revathi Vs the Managing Director

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Regional Manager

Sri Sridhara M P Vs Sri Mahadevaiah

Kavya B S Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.