Partly allowed

Sri. K. Raghuram v. Branch Manager

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026MFA/9137/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a 2012 road accident appealed for enhancement of MACT compensation. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's 50% contributory negligence finding, reassessed disability at 12% with notional income of Rs.7,000 per month, enhanced total compensation to Rs.5,55,280, and awarded the claimant Rs.2,77,640 after deducting his 50% share.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,77,640 with 6% p.a. interest (excluding 09.12.2015-29.10.2024); Insurance Company directed to deposit balance within one month.

Sri. K. Raghuram Vs Branch Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9137 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.RAGHURAM S/O K.NARASIMHA AGED 37 YEARS R/AT NO.582, SHAKTHI NAGAR BETTAHALASURU CROSS AND POST JALAHOBLI, BANGALORE. PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.61-1-465 SAIDABAD, HYDERABAD

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA E P, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL INS CO.LTD., MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS HUB NO.144, 2^ND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶15

THE MANAGING PARTNER M/S.KARTHIK TRANSPORTS, NO.13/20 K.S.V.NILAYA, 1^ST FLOOR, KALASIPALYAM NEW EXTN., BENGALURU -560002

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; NOTICE TO R.2 IS D/W V/O/D 01.08.2017)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.7889/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Though this matter is listed for admission, with

¶25

the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken for final disposal.

¶26

Heard the arguments from both sides.

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant

¶28

against the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No.7889/2012 dated 24.06.2015 by the MACT, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-24).

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Injured - Claimant, who is aged 34 years, has

¶32

met with an accident on 02.09.2012 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstance and evidence on record, has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., The Tribunal has fastened liability on Respondent Nos.1 and 2 at 50% each.

¶33

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant - claimant has preferred an appeal and mainly contended that he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital for a period of 32 days. The Doctor assessed the disability as 35.4% to the left lower limb and 17.7% to the whole body. The Tribunal has granted meager amount under the other heads. The Tribunal has not awarded any

¶34

amount under the heads "Loss of Future Income" and "Disfigurement" though he sustained scar marks, which are permanent in nature and "Future Medical Expenses" was not considered by the Tribunal. The appellant was

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

working as Finance Assistant Cum Sales Executive and at the time of the accident, he was self-employee and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has granted meager amounts and also further stated that the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence against him, though charge sheet is filed against the driver of the lorry and thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶38

The manner of accident shows that on 02.09.2012, while he was riding a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.AP-11-AN-7345 and had reached near M.V.I.T College Road and B.B.(NH-7) road and was waiting to cross the said junction. At that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-01-B-5738 came from the same direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind. But, the counsel for the respondent argued that as per Ex.R.1 - Spot Sketch, the lorry was moving on the main road in a straight direction and had already passed the service road junction

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

and that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. The petitioner could have avoided the accident with a little care while entering into the National Highway Road. The Tribunal has rightly considered all those aspects and fixed 50% liability and it is to be confirmed.

¶42

Perusal of the records shows that both vehicles were being driven at a high speed. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the Tribunal erred in fixing 50% contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle, particularly, when the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry. As such, the entire negligence is to be fixed upon him. Ex.R.1 - copy of the sketch is filed by the Insurance Company and Ex.P.4 - copy of the sketch is filed by the appellant. Both are one and the same.

¶43

The case of the appellant is that the lorry, which was proceeding in the same direction, dashed against his motorcycle from behind. However, a perusal of the spot sketch shows that while the lorry was coming on the main road, the accident occurred at the junction when he was

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

coming from the Service Road. This Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the lorry at 50% each. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding on the contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal.

¶47

The petitioner has stated that initially, he was working as a Financial Assistant cum Sales Executive and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. He filed Ex.P.14 - Appointment Letter and Ex.P.15 - Salary Particulars. He further stated that he resigned the said job and filed Ex.P.16 - Resignation Letter. He stated that later, he was continuing his own business for supplying of building materials. Though the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, he has not filed any documents to prove his income. Since the accident occurred in the year 2012, this Court finds it is just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.7,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The petitioner was aged 34 years and the relevant multiplier is taken as '16'.

¶52

The petitioner - claimant sustained following injuries as per Ex.P.7 - Wound Certificate, which are grievous in nature.

¶53

i) Type I compound fracture of left leg. ii) Degloving injury over left ankle and foot.

¶54

The claimant has also examined the Doctor as P.W.3. P.W.3 has filed an affidavit in support of his evidence and the relevant portions are extracted, which read as under;

¶55

"Operation: of wound debridement and closure of left ankle and foot with CRIF (CLOSED REDUCTION INTERNAL FIXATION) with interlocking IM (INTRA MEDULLARY) nail done on date 03.09.2012 and again on date 10.09.2012 debridment of left leg and foot and VAC application done and discharge on date 10/09/2012.

¶56

Second Admission: On date 21/10/2012 diagnosed as Post-Op CRIF with IMIL nail left Tibia with open wound over left ankle and foot, operation of SPLIT THICKNESS SKIN GRAFTING of left leg done on date 22/10/2012 and discharged on date 25/10/2012.

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Third Admission: On date 24/01/2013 diagnosed as 5 months old DELAYED UNION of fracture of both bones of left leg. Operation planned but postponed due to ECG changes and patient was discharged on request on date 27/10/2013.

¶60

Fourth Admission: On date 7/02/2013 operation of bone grafting done on date 08/02/2013 and discharged on date 11/02/2013."

¶61

On clinical examination, it was found that there was a difficulty to stand and bear weight on left leg and the disability of left lower limb has 35.4% and 17.7% to the whole body. On radiological examination, the Doctor has opined that the facture of left Tibia shows Partial Union facture Fibula shows UNMN.

¶62

Considering the medical evidence available on record, this Court finds it just and reasonable to take 1/3^rd of 35.4% as disability. Accordingly, the disability is assessed at 12%. Therefore, the compensation under the head 'Loss of Future Earning Capacity' comes to Rs.7,000x12x16x12%= Rs.1,61,280/- . Further, he was admitted to the Hospital for a period of 32 days. He

¶63

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

incurred Rs.2,49,000/- towards medial expenses. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.2,49,000/towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed.

¶66

Considering the nature of injuries, hospitalization, his occupation and other given factors, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/under the head "Pain and Suffering", Rs.30,000/- under the head "Loss of Amenities" and Rs.30,000/for "Transportation and Attendance Charges". The petitioner might not have attended his work at least for a period of five months due to the injuries sustained in the accident i.e., Rs.35,000/- is to be granted under the head "Loss of Income" during the laid up period. The total compensation comes to Rs.5,55,280/- . The claimant has also contributory negligence of 50%, which is already fastened against the claimant. Accordingly, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,77,640/- .

¶67

Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation:

¶68

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

SL.NO.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT (IN.RS.)
1.	Pain and Sufferings	50,000.00
2.	Loss of amenities	30,000.00
3.	Medical expenses	2,49,000.00
4.	Transportation	30,000.00
5.	Loss of income during laid up period	35,000.00
	TOTAL	5,55,280/-
	50% of Total Compensation	2,77,640/-

¶71

The Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the compensation amount before the Tribunal and compensation is enhanced from Rs.4,10,000/to Rs.5,55,280/-. So, Insurance Company has deposited 50% of the compensation. Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation within a period of one month on the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the appellantclaimant is not entitled for interest from 09.12.2015 to 29.10.2024 as per the Judicial Order dated 29.10.2024.

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:27824 MFA No. 9137 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶78

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.7889/2012 dated 24.06.2015 by the MACT, Court of Small Causes at Bengaluru (SCCH-24), is hereby modified holding that the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,77,640/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. excluding the interest from 09.12.2015 to 29.10.2024.

¶79

iii. Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., within a period of one month from today. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it.

¶80

iv. The appellant/claimant is not entitled for interest from 09.12.2015 to 29.10.2024 as per the Judicial Order dated 29.10.2024

¶81

v. Ordered accordingly.

¶82

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶83

NBM

¶84

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri. K. Raghuram v. Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K. Raghuram v. Branch Manager

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Shulapani S K

Smt Rangamma Vs Sri Madhu K T @ Madhusudan

Smt Amrutha Vs Sri Udaya Shivakumar

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Venkataramu

Sri. Manjunath Vs the Manager

Sri. G. v. Varadaraju Vs M/S United India Insurance