Partly allowed

Mahadevaswamy v. Loka Vijaya Raja

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2026MFA/8675/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows two appeals filed against Motor Vehicles Act awards, enhancing compensation for two injured claimants. The court recalculated disability percentages and future loss of earning capacity based on a notional income of Rs. 11,000 per month, directing the insurance company to deposit enhanced amounts totaling Rs. 4,76,220 and Rs. 5,28,900 respectively.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,76,220 for the first claimant and Rs. 5,28,900 for the second claimant with 6% p.a. interest; Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amounts.

Mahadevaswamy Vs Loka Vijaya Raja — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8675 OF 2024 (MV-I)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8665 OF 2024 (MV-I)

¶11

IN MFA No. 8675/2024

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

MAHADEVASWAMY S/O RAJU

¶14

NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A DODATHUPPUR POST GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

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

¶19

LOKA VIJAYA RAJA S/O RAJARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A PALYAM PUNJAI PULIYUR KARUR TAMILNADU STATE - 639 001

¶20

KANCHANA DEVI M W/O JOSEPH SELWARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/ A KALAYAR KOVIL

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

HC-KAR

ANNA NAGAR

NO. 4132, SHIVAGANGA DISTRICT TAMILNADU - 630 561

¶26

3. THE MANAGER

¶27

IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD., SHIVA MARUTHI INSURANCE MADURAI

¶28

TAMILNADU - 625 016

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. P.S. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 D/W)

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.30/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶32

IN MFA NO. 8665/2024

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

HEMANTH

¶35

S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A DODDATHUPPUR VILLAGE, CHIKKATHUPPUR POST, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

(BY SRI. RAGHU R., ADVOCATE)

¶38

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

AND:

¶41

LOKA VIJAYA RAJA S/O RAJARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A PALYAM PUNJAI, PULIYUR, KARUR,

¶42

TAMILNADU STATE-639001

¶43

KANCHANA DEVI. M. W/O JOSEPH SELWARAJ. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A KALAYAR KOVIL, ANNA NAGAR, NO.4132, SHIVAGANGA DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-630561

¶44

THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD., SHIVA MARUTHI INSURANCE, MADURAI, TAMILNADU-625016

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. P.S. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 D/W)

¶47

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.29/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶52

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶53

IN MFA NO.8675/2024

¶54

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 07.02.2022 passed in MVC Nos.29/2019 and 30/2019. However, MFA No.8675/2024 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.30/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupe, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶55

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶56

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 19.11.2017 and filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.14,23,413/-. The Tribunal considering

¶57

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,66,300/- 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 working as a cook and also doing agriculture work, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken meagre income. The petitioner examined the doctor as CW.2, who assessed the disability of the right lower limb at 38%. But the Tribunal has taken it as only 12% and the amounts awarded under other heads are also meagre. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶60

Though it is stated that the petitioner/injured was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2017, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner/injured was aged 28 years and the applicable multiplier is '17'. As per Ex.P.4-wound certificate, the petitioner sustained abrasion over the forehead, abrasion over the right knee joint and fracture of right femur shaft with

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

fracture of right neck of fibula and ORIF with CIMIL NAIL was done.

¶64

The petitioner examined the doctor as CW.2, who assessed the disability of the right lower limb at 38%. Ex.C.4 is the X-ray, Ex.C.5 is the OPD slip and Ex.C.6 is another X-ray. He conducted surgery and further stated that the fracture sustained by the petitioner has united. It was suggested to him that the quantum of restriction will be reduced after removal of the implant. But he denied the same. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take the disability at 1/3^rd of 38% i.e., 13% and the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.2,91,720/- (11,000 x 12 x 17 x 13%). The Tribunal granted Rs.21,500/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. The petitioner/injured was hospitalized for a period of 12 days. The Tribunal granted Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and it is confirmed. This Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any work at least for a period of three months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.33,000/- (11,000 x 3) is granted

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

towards loss of income during the laid-up period. The Tribunal also granted Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses and the same is confirmed.

¶68

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶69

as below:

¶70

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	50,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses	21,500/-
3	Towards loss of amenities	30,000/-
4	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
5	Towards loss of income during laid up period	33,000/-
6	Towards future medical expenses	20,000/-
7	Towards loss of future earning capacity	2,91,720/-
	Total	4,76,220/-

¶71

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶72

compensation of Rs.4,76,220/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶74

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶79

ii. The judgment and award dated 07.02.2022 passed in MVC No.30/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupe, is modified.

¶80

iii. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,76,220/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,66,300/- granted by the tribunal.

¶81

iv. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,09,920/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶82

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

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

¶85

vi. The appellant is not entitled for interest for 937 days of delay, as per order in I.A.No.1/2024 dated 19.01.2026.

¶86

IN MFA NO.8665/2024

¶87

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the common judgment and award dated 07.02.2022 passed in MVC Nos.29/2019 and 30/2019. However, MFA No.8665/2024 is filed against the award passed in MVC No.29/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupe, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶88

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶89

The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 19.11.2017 and filed petition before the Tribunal

¶90

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

for compensation of Rs.11,09,262/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,02,900/- 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 working as a cook and also doing agriculture work, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken meagre income. The petitioner examined the doctor as CW.1, who assessed the disability of the whole body at 20%. But the Tribunal has taken it as 9% and the amounts awarded under other heads are also meagre. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶93

Though it is stated that the petitioner/injured was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2017, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner/injured was aged 22 years and the applicable multiplier is '18'. As per Ex.P.5-wound certificate and Ex.P.9-discharge summary the petitioner sustained an abrasion

¶94

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

over the forehead, linear un-displaced fracture of posterior wall of the left frontal sinus, and un-displaced fracture nasal process of the left frontal bone. The petitioner/injured also examined the doctor as CW.1 and he stated the petitioner sustained intellectual impairment at 15% and Ataxia (both stance and gait) at 5%, in total the petitioner sustained 20% disability to the whole body. Ex.C.1 is the disability assessment certificate and Ex.C.2 is the psychological assessment report. CW.1 further stated that he advised the petitioner to undergo psychological assessment. CW.1 is a neurosurgeon and he assessed the neurological disability at 20% to the whole body. Apart from that, the petitioner also sustained a linear undisplaced fracture of the posterior wall of the left frontal sinus and an un-displaced fracture nasal process of the left frontal bone. Considering both the disabilities, this Court finds it reasonable to assess the whole body disability of the petitioner at 15%. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity comes to Rs.3,56,400/- (11,000 x 12 x 18 x 15%). The Tribunal granted Rs.8,500/- towards medical expenses and the same is confirmed. The petitioner/injured was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient for a period of 8 days. Considering the nature of

¶97

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

injuries, period of hospitalization, his age and other relevant factors, the Tribunal has already granted Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same is confirmed. This Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, and attendant charges. The petitioner might not have attended any work at least for a period of four months. Therefore, a sum of Rs.44,000/- (11,000 x 4) is granted towards loss of income during the laid-up period.

¶100

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶101

as below:

¶102

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards pain and suffering	60,000/-
2	Towards medical expenses	8,500/-
3	Towards loss of amenities	30,000/-
4	Towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges	30,000/-
5	Towards loss of income during laid up period	44,000/-
6	Towards loss of future earning capacity	3,56,400/-
	Total	5,28,900/-

¶103

13 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total

¶107

compensation of Rs.5,28,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶108

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶109

ORDER

¶110

vii. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶111

viii. The judgment and award dated 07.02.2022 passed in MVC No.29/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupe, is modified.

¶112

ix. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,28,900/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.3,02,900/- granted by the tribunal.

¶113

x. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Therefore, respondent

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:15617 MFA No. 8675 of 2024 C/W MFA No. 8665 of 2024

¶115

14 -

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

No.3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶118

the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,26,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the date of this order.

¶119

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

¶120

xii. The appellant is not entitled for interest for 936 days of delay, as per order in I.A.No.1/2024 dated 19.12.2025.

¶121

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶122

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mahadevaswamy v. Loka Vijaya Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevaswamy v. Loka Vijaya Raja

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

Mrs. Pooja B S Vs Mr.Karan Patel K L

Kantharaju Vs Pradeep

Smt Netravathi Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Mahadevaswamy N Vs Marishetty

Shri Umashankara Vs Shri Raghu K R

Sri. B. M. Nanjappa Vs the Managing Director