Sri.Manjunath v. Sri.B.M.Keerthi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5192 OF 2021 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5188 OF 2021 (MV-I) IN MFA NO. 5192/2021: BETWEEN:

¶1SRI.MANJUNATH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KARUNAKUPPE VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI-571105 HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SRI.B.M.KEERTHI S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED 29 YEARS, R/AT BEKRE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK-571107 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶2SRI. KASTHURIGOWDA S/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED 39 YEARS, by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:11300 MFA(No.(5192(of(2021 C/W(MFA(No.(5188(of(2021 R/AT,MUDUGANURU,VILLAGE,, HANAGODU,HOBLI-571105, HUNSUR,TALUK.,

3., THE,MANAGER, NATIONAL,INSURANCE,CO,LTD.,, TH14 ,MAIN,,SARASWATHIPURAM,, MYSURU-570009, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,PRITHVIRAJ.,,ADVOCATE,FOR, SRI.,G.,BALAKRISHNA,SHASTRY.,ADVOCATE), , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, THE, RECORDS, IN, MVC, NO.966/2017, PASSED, BY, THE, PRL., SMALL, CAUSES, AND, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, AT, MYSURU, WHICH, WAS, DISPOSED, OFF, ON,

10.08.2021, ENHANCE, THE, COMPENSATION, FROM, RS.2,58,/500/-, AS, AWARDED, BY, THE, TRIBUNAL, TO, RS.14,98,000/-,AGAINST,THE,RESPONDENT,IN,THE,INTEREST, OF,JUSTICE., IN(MFA(NO.(5188/2021: BETWEEN:

1., SRI.SURESH, S/O,LATE,SOMAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,,, R/AT,KARUNAKUPPE,VILLAGE,,, HANAGODU,,HOBLI-571105,,, HUNSUR,TQ.,MYSURU,DISTRICT., ...APPELLANT (BY,SRI.,SYED,ABDUL,SABOOR,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., SRI.B.M.KEERTHI, S/O,NINGEGOWDA,,, e -e3e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:11300 MFA(No.(5192(of(2021 C/W(MFA(No.(5188(of(2021 AGED,ABOUT,29,YEARS,,, R/AT,BEKRE,VILLAGE,,KASABA,HOBLI,,, PERIYAPATNA,TALUK,571107,,, MYSURU,DISTRICT.,

2., SRI.,KASTHURIGOWDA, S/O,VENKATEGOWDA,,, AGE:,39,YEARS,,, R/AT,MUDUGANURU,,VILLAGE,,, HANAGODU,HOBLI-571105,,, HUNSUR,TALUK.,

3., THE,MANAGER, NATIONAL,INSURANCE,CO.,LTD.,, TH14 ,MAIN,,SARASWATHIPURAM,,, MYSURU-570009., ...RESPONDENTS (BY,SRI.,PRUTHVI,RAJ,,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,G.,BALAKRISHNA,SHASTRY,,ADV.,FOR,R1,&,R2;, ,,,,,,SMT.,KOWSALYA,,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,RAVISH,BENNI,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3), ,,,,,,,THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,173(1),OF,M.V., ACT,, PRAYING, TO, CALL, FOR, THE, RECORDS, IN, MVC, NO.965/2017, PASSED, BY, THE, PRL., SMALL, CAUSES, AND, SENIOR,CIVIL,JUDGE,AT,MYSURU,WHICH,WAS,DISPOSED, OFF, ON, 10.08.2021, AND, ENHANCE, THE, COMPENSATION, FROM, RS.2,06,500/-,AS, AWARDED, BY,THE, TRIBUNAL, TO, RS.14,98,000/-, AGAINST, THE, RESPONDENT, IN, THE, INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE., , THESE, APPEALS, COMING, ON, FOR, DICTATING, JUDGMENT,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT, WAS, DELIVERED, THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,DR.,JUSTICE,CHILLAKUR,SUMALATHA,

ORAL JUDGMENT MFA No.5188/2021 is the outcome of the award passed in MVC No.965/2017 and MFA No.5192/2021 is the outcome of the award that is passed in MVC No.966/2017.

¶2Both the orders were rendered in common by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru on 10.08.2021. Claimant's therein preferred these appeals.

¶3Heard Sri.Syed Abdul Saboor learned counsel for appellant in both the appeals. Sri. Pruthvi Raj who represented Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the appeals as well as Ms. Kowsalya who represented Sri.Ravish Benni learned counsel on record for respondent No.3 in both the appeals were also heard.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals contended that the appellants by doing agricultural work and coolie work were earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But the tribunal took their notional

income as Rs.7,000/- per month only. Learned counsel states that the accident in which both the appellants sustained injuries occurred in the year 2017 and for the relevant period, for settlement of claims, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month and at least said figure should have been considered by the tribunal. Learned counsel also submitted that compensation granted under all heads to both the appellants is on lower side. Learned counsel thereby seeks enhancement in compensation.

¶5Learned counsel who represented respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals stated that liability is fastened against respondent Nos.1 and 2 only and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are poor and therefore their status may be taken into consideration.

¶6Learned counsel who represented respondent No.3 submitted that no liability is fastened against respondent No.3 in both the appeals.

¶7The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is only in respect of the sum that is awarded as compensation. Entitlement of the appellant in MFA No.5188/2021 who is claimant in MVC No.965/2017:

¶8It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained Hemorrhagic parenchymal contusions in the right thalamus and fornix, fracture of lateral and inferior walls of right orbit, fracture of right Zygomatic arch, right sphenoid wing and fracture of all walls of right maxillary sinus with hemosinus. The disability assessed by the tribunal in respect of whole body which is permanent in nature needs no interference. However, considering the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellants, the notional income of the appellant herein is required to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. Thus, taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- per month and without disturbing the other parameters that is application of

appropriate multiplier '13' and disability in respect of whole body as 11%, the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.1,88,760/-(11,000 x12x13x11%).

¶9Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest at least for a period of 4 months. Thus, loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.44,000/- (11,000x4).

¶10As rightly put forth by learned counsel for the appellant the compensation granted under material heads is on lower side. Thus considering the totality of evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under different heads is as under:-

Sl. Description Amount

¶1Compensation for pain and suffering 35,000.00

¶2Loss of income during laid up period 44,000.00

¶3Towards Food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000.00

¶4Loss of amenities 10,000.00

¶5Medical expenses 31,000.00

¶6Loss of future earnings 1,88,760.00

¶7Future medical expenses 15,000.00 Total 3,43,760.00

¶11The tribunal through the impugned order held that appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,06,500/- as compensation. However the discussion that went on supra makes it clear that appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,43,760/- as compensation. Entitlement of the appellant in MFA No.5192/2021 who is claimant in MVC No.966/2017:

¶12By all the evidence produced, appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained grievous injury at the distal 1/3rd of right thigh and suprapatelar abrasions over right knee. The tribunal rightly took the disability in respect of whole body as 15%. Basing on the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court considers desirable to take the notional income of the appellant as Rs.11,000/- per month. On applying other parameters i.e. multiplier as '15' and disability in respect of whole body as 15%, taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per month the compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive towards loss of future earnings is Rs.2,97,000/- (11,000 x12x15x15%).

¶13In the light of the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits at least for a period of three months. Thus loss of earnings during laid up period comes to Rs.33,000/-(11,000 x 3). Also this Court is of the view that compensation granted

by the tribunal under material heads requires marginal enhancement. Therefore compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive under different heads is as under:- Sl. Description Amount

¶1Compensation for pain and suffering. 30,000.00

¶2Loss of income during laid up period. 33,000.00

¶3Towards food, extra nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000.00

¶4Loss of amenities 10,000.00

¶5Medical expenses 27,500.00

¶6Loss of future earnings 2,97,000.00 Total 4,17,500.00

¶14The tribunal gave a finding that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,58,500/- as compensation. However, this Court is of the view that he is entitled to a

sum of Rs.4,17,500 as compensation. Therefore both the appeals are disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. Both the appeals are allowed in part. ii. Compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru through orders in MVC No.965/2017 dated 10.08.2021 is enhanced from Rs.2,06,500/- to Rs.3,43,760/-. iii. The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru through orders in MVC No. 966/2017 dated 10.08.2021 is enhanced from Rs.2,58,500/- to Rs.4,17,500/-. iv. The enhanced sum in both the appeals shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of respective petitions till the date of deposit.

v. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. vi. On deposit, appellants are permitted to withdraw the same. SD/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21