Sri Mayanna Vs Sri Thimmaraju

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23161 MFA No. 9044 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9044 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MAYANNA, S/O SRI HALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.284, ABALAVADI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. APEKSHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI THIMMARAJU, S/O KAPANI CHIKKA MANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT ABALAVADI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, NO.1119/8, KAMBLI BUILDING, M.C. ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, MANDYA.

¶15

YASHODAMMA, W/O JAWARLAL, MARLIGA VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI B.S KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 & R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 75/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23161 MFA No. 9044 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MADDUR, 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:

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the injured challenging judgment and award dated 22.12.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.75 of 2016 by the M.A.C.T., Maddur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶26

Heard Smt.Apeksha., learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the appellant and Sri.B.S.Krishna., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶28

This appeal by the injured seeking enhancement of compensation, mainly on the grounds that the income assessed by the Tribunal at 6% is on the lower side. It is contended that the claimant was engaged as an agriculturist, woodcutter, and also performed coolie work, earning approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23161 MFA No. 9044 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the same. It is further submitted that CW1 assessed permanent disability at 50% to the left lower limb. However, the assessment of the disability by the Tribunal as well as the award of compensation on all other heads are on the lower side and require enhancement.

¶32

It is to be noticed that the accident occurred on 01.10.2015, at which time the claimant was approximately 45 years of age. He was engaged in agricultural activities, worked as a woodcutter, and also undertook coolie work, earning about Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶33

Admittedly, no cogent evidence was placed before the Tribunal to substantiate the claimant’s income. Hence, the Tribunal has notionally assessed his income at Rs.9,000/- per month, placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA).

¶34

Insofar as the disability is concerned, CW1 has deposed that the injured was treated as an inpatient for a

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23161 MFA No. 9044 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

period of 10 days, from 01.10.2015 to 11.10.2015, at Kaveri Hospital, Mysore. It is further stated that, postdischarge, the claimant was required to undergo continued treatment and take adequate rest for recovery from the fracture. CW1 has assessed the permanent disability at 50% to the left lower limb. Considering the oral evidence of CW1, the documentary evidence at Ex.P5-wound certificate, and other medical records, I am of the considered view that the disability ought to be assessed at 18% to the whole body.

¶38

The records indicate that the petitioner sustained a comminuted fracture of the shaft of the left femur along with crush injuries to the left foot. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the fact that he was treated as an inpatient for a period of 10 days, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side and requires appropriate enhancement. Accordingly, the same is reassessed as under:

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23161 MFA No. 9044 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

HEADS	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
Pain & suffering	45,000.00
Medical Expenses	2,02,625.00
Loss of income during laid up period	27,000.00
(Rs.9,000 x 3 months)
Loss of future income due to disability	2,72,160.00
(Rs.9,000 x12x14x18%)
Loss of amenities	45,000.00
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	31,500.00
Total	6,23,285.00

¶42

Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a

¶43

total compensation of Rs.6,23,285/- as against

¶44

Rs.4,42,405/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶45

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶46

following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

a) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶49

b) The impugned judgment and award dated 22.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.75/2016 is modified to an extent that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:23161 MFA No. 9044 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

compensation of Rs.6,23,285/- as against Rs.4,42,405/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶54

c) The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶55

d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶56

e) The rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal with respect to apportionment, deposit and release shall remain unaltered.

¶57

f) Registry to transmit the records back to the Tribunal.

¶58

g) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶59

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶60

SR

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Mayanna v. Sri Thimmaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mayanna v. Sri Thimmaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Veerabhadrappa Vs Sri Shylesh Kumar Singh

Appannagowda @ Appannigowda Vs the Divisional Controller

Divakar M D Vs Lingaraju

Sri Vedavyas Kamath Vs Mr B Sunil Bajilkeri @ Sunil Shettigar

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Paramesha L

Sri K Jafar Sadique Vs Sri Manjunatha K Naik