MFA/2612/2017 of SRI GURUSHARAN B M Vs SRI SATHYANANDA on 17 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard, Sri.Gurulingaiah T.R, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for Sri. C.Lakshminarayan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated 26.10.2017.

2. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 in MVC.No.3496/2015 passed by

HC-KAR

XXI Add. SCJ and XIX ACMM, Member, MACT (SCCH-23) Bengaluru.1

3. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, injuries suffered and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation.

4. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

5. In the accident occurred on 03.05.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. The claimant had suffered grievous injuries i.e., obliquely placed surgically sutured wound present over medial aspect of left heel measuring 8 cms in length, with necrosis of skin, horizontally placed surgically sutured wound present measuring 12 cms in length, necrosis of skin present.

6. As per the Doctor, the claimant has suffered 25.7% of disability to the left lower limb. Accordingly, he 1 ‘Tribunal’ for short

HC-KAR

has filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Upon receipt of summons respondent No.1 remained absent and placed ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement denying all the allegations stated in the claim petition and has taken specific contention that the petition bad for non-joinder of necessary parties who are the owner/Insurer of KA-41-X-8301 which was involved in the accident. Further, taken contention that on the issuance to the insurance policy that, the same is not yet confirmed in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident and any liability is subject to the policy conditions, if any. Further, taken a specific contention on the provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sought to dismiss the claim petition.

8. The Tribunal upon completion of pleadings framed three issues, out of which Issue No.1 is on rash

HC-KAR

and negligent driving, which is answered in affirmative, on the ground that rider of motorcycle was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner.

9. The Tribunal has taken income at the rate of Rs.20,000/- p.m., and disability at 8.35%. However, considering that the claimant after he left his job in Wipro, where he was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., and started private business and earning as such there is no proof of loss of earning and hence the Tribunal has not considered to award the compensation under the head loss of future income. The Tribunal upon consideration of materials placed on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,40,860/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

10. Sri. Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Gurulingaiah T.R, learned counsel for the appellant with all vehemence submits that the injury suffered is not disputed and the same has resulted in

HC-KAR

disability. The Doctor has assessed disability at 25.7%. The Tribunal, though considered the same at 8.35%, however on the fact that the claimant was doing business after he left his job in Wipro declined to grant any compensation on the premise that there is no loss of future income, which is not sustainable in law, in the absence of any contra evidence by the Insurer that he is earning more amount in business.

11. Further, he submits that the medical expenses as per bills, comes to Rs.1,25,860/- the total amount of compensation awarded is Rs.2,40,684/-. As such, the same requires re-consideration under each head and sought to allow the appeal.

12. Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal having considered the fact that the claimant left his job and started his own business and in the absence of any materials to show that he is suffering any loss in his

HC-KAR

business due to the injuries suffered, awarded appropriate compensation which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

13. Having considered the rival submissions this Court is of the considered opinion that in the teeth of Doctor evidence, and in the absence of any contra evidence placed by the Insurer to support its contention that there is no loss of income to the claimant and in view of disability certificate and the avocation of the claimant, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the case of the claimant for awarding appropriate compensation under the head loss of future income. This Court consider the disability at 10% and taken the income of Rs.20,000/- p.m., the claimant is entitled for loss of future earnings. The Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation on other heads when compared to the injuries suffered and disability resulted and the same requires re-consideration. Accordingly, this Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.

HC-KAR

14. Accordingly, on re-determination the claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs.

1. Pain and Suffering 25,000-00 50,000-00

2. Loss of Income during laid up period 60,000-00 80,000-00 (20,000x4)

3. Loss of amenities 20,000-00 50,000-00

4. Medical expenses 1,25,860-00 1,25,860-00

5. Food conveyance and nourishment 10,000-00 15,000-00

6. Loss of future income

- 3,84,000-00 (20,000x12x16x10%)

TOTAL 2,40,860-00 7,04,860-00

15. On re-determination, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,04,860/- as against Rs.2,40,860/- and enhanced compensation would be Rs.4,64,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, except the delayed period of 114 days in filing this appeal, in terms of the order passed on application seeking condonation of delay.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

HC-KAR

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 in MVC.No.3496/2015 passed by XXI Addl. SCJ and XIX ACMM, Member, MACT (SCCH-23) Bengaluru, is hereby modified. iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,64,000/- (Rs.7,04,860 - Rs.2,40,860) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, except the delayed period of 114 days in filing the appeal. iv) The Respondent No.2/Insurer shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation along with interest stated supra before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

HC-KAR

v) Upon deposit entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. vi) The Registry shall return the trial Court record forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn