Manju & Manjunatha v. Satish

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2345 OF 2016(MV-I) BETWEEN:

MANJU @ MANJUNATHA S/O RUDRAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O PILANGERI VILLAGE TQ & DT. SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI K MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SATISH S/O SADASHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O RAVINDRANAGAR, MAIN ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶2P.RAMA KUMAR S/O PRASAD SHETTY, R/O E.W.S.-30 K.H.B.COLONY, VINOBHANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204.

¶3THE UNITED INDIA INS. CO., DIVISION OFFICE, PB NO.88, 1187/947, 2ND FLOOR, RUB BUILDING,

by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

A.A.CIRCLE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.128/14 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-6 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 28.07.2015 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VI, Shivamogga (Tribunal) in M.V.C.no.128/2014, this appeal is filed.

¶2Sri Manjunath Rao Bhonsle, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that at 3.30 p.m. on 16.04.2013 when claimant was riding his motorcycle

on Shimoga Pillangere road, driver of bus no.KA-35/A-9279 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against motorcycle. In accident, claimant sustained fracture of shaft right radius, left clavicle and proximal phalanx of right little finger. Though he took treatment at Mc.Gann Hospital at Shimoga and Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore, he did not recover fully and sustained permanent disability. Claiming compensation for same, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) against owner, driver and insurer of vehicle.

¶3On contest, claim petition was opposed on all grounds, tribunal proved issues and recorded evidence. There was another claim arising out of same accident, which was clubbed.

¶4Claimants examined four witnesses including themselves, Dr.Sudheendra P.R. and Dr.Suni M.P. as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-25. Respondent did not lead oral evidence and got marked copy of policy with consent as Ex.R1.

¶5On consideration, tribunal held that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver, claimant had sustained injury, lost earning capacity and assessed total compensation of Rs.3,54,800/- with interest at 9% p.a. and held insurer liable to pay same. Dis-satisfied with compensation, appeal was filed.

¶6It was submitted that as on date of accident, claimant was 30 years of age and working as agricultural coolie and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Without justification, tribunal considered his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and awarded inadequate compensation. It was submitted that though claimant sustained three fractures, Tribunal awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards attendant's conveyance and other incidental expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.2,44,800/- towards loss of future income, which was inadequate. Tribunal also erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during laid-up period or towards future medical expenses.

¶7On other hand, Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted that Tribunal has assessed compensation based on material on record leaving no scope for enhancement.

¶8Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶9Since only claimant is in appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is-

'Whether claimant is entitled for

enhancement of compensation?'

¶10Said point is answered partly in affirmative for following - REASONS

¶11Indisputably, claimant aged about 30 years working as agricultural coolie was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In accident, he had sustained fracture of shaft of right radius, left clavicle and proximal phalanx of right little finger. However, he did not substantiate earning by specific document. In absence, tribunal assessed it notionally. Since accident occurred in year

2013, notional income prescribed for year 2013 is at Rs.8,000/- and same has to be considered. Referring to deposition of P.W.3 that injuries had resulted in disability of 27.9%, to upper limb, tribunal has considered loss of earning capacity at 20% and applying correct multiplier of '17' assessed compensation. Considering nature of disability, assessment of loss of earning capacity at 20% does not appear to be grossly inadequate so as to warrant interference.

¶12In view of above, re-assessment of compensation towards future loss of income would be as follows- [Rs.8,000/- x 20% x 12 x 17 = Rs.3,26,400/-]

¶13Considering fracture of shaft right radius, left clavicle and proximal phalanx of right little finger, award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- by tribunal towards pain and suffering would be justified. Therefore, no enhancement. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- even though claimant has produced medical bills for only Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, there would be no scope for enhancement. Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards attendant, conveyance and other

incidental expenses; considering duration of inpatient period even said amount cannot be stated to be grossly inadequate as to warrant interference. Therefore, same is confirmed. Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during period of treatment. Normally, fractures take three months to heal. Considering this period as laid-up, claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 3 months). Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, which under circumstances appears justified. Though learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued for award of future medical expenses, since there is no material to indicate implants and need for surgery for removal or for future treatment, prayer for award of future medical expenses does not appear justified and is rejected.

¶14In view of above, following-ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and award dated 28.07.2015 passed by Prl. Senior Civil

Judge & MACT-VI, Shivamogga in M.V.C.no.128/2014 is modified. ii. Claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,60,400/- as against Rs.3,54,800/- awarded by Tribunal and same shall carry interest at 9% per annum from date of claim till award excluding period of 154 days being delay in filing appeal. iii. Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation before tribunal within six weeks. iv. On deposit, entire enhanced compensation is ordered to be transmitted to claimant's account by electronic means. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10