- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1850 OF 2019(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SATHYANARAYANA SHET, S/O. MANJUNATH SHET, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. CAR STREET, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O. BEDU KHARVI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O AJJAYYA MANE, MEDICAL, TARAPATHI POST, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK. 2. SRI. HARISHCHANDRA KHARVI S/O RAMU KHARVI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O HO.NO.6-76A, MUKADI MANE, MEDICAL, UPPUNDA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SRI. LAXMI NARASIMHA COMPLEX, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 NH-66 VADERAHOBLI, KUNDAPURA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 - SERVED; V/O/D 10.02.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.540/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, [SITTING AT KUNDAPURA], KUNDAPUR, 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 PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimant being dissatisfied by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), at Kundapura. Consequently, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that on 03.04.2017 when he was riding his - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 motorcycle from Kundapura towards Byndoor cautiously and slowly at that time another motorcycle bearing registration number KA -20-EC-6092 came in a rash and negligent manner by overtaking a lorry came to the extreme wrong side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. 3. Due to the occurrence of the accident and impact of the vehicle claimant sustained grievous injuries and were shifted to the T.M.A.Pai hospital whereas he underwent surgeries, took treatment, incurred financial expenditures. Due to the injuries suffered and financial expenditure incurred during the treatment and for other miscellaneous expenditure he filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents. 4. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 5. Respondent No.3 filed statement of objections denied the claim of the claimants, sort for dismissal of the claim petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 6. On the basis of materials placed on record both oral and documentary, tribunal allowed the appeal in part and awarded compensation to an extent of Rs.5,56,704/- and directed the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation within 2 months. 7. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erred in awarding inadequate, meagre compensation without going through the evidence, materials on record including the evidence adduced by the doctor PW 2 who opined disability to an extent of 40% to the whole body and also the tribunal has committed an error in not taking income commensurate to the employment of the claimant and as stated in the claim petition so also the tribunal has committed an gross error in not awarding future prospects due to the magnitude and seriousness of the injuries. It is also contended that under other heads meagre compensation is awarded for which he is before this court seeking enhancement consequently seeks to allow the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Ravi S.Shendige representing the Insurance Company vehemently contends that the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and thereby there is no need for any interference at the hands of this Court. He sustains the impugned judgement and award. He also contends that the question of awarding future prospects would not arise as the disability assessed by the tribunal is on the higher side so also the doctor has not assessed proper disability to particular limb so also to the whole body. All other multipliers and award of compensation under other heads are just and reasonable which does not call for interference. On these grounds he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company. The occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle, injuries sustained by the appellant, expenditures meted out for the treatment of injuries in the road traffic accident are proved and established by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the offending vehicle. Policy is also admitted. 10. Now coming to the question of age, avocation, income and disability and the compensation to be awarded it is seen that the age of the appellant as on date of occurrence of accident was 41 years. The appropriate multiplier is taken at 14 which does not call for interference. Income is taken by the tribunal at Rs.9,000/- which is on the lower side. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant, the same requires enhancement hence income is taken at Rs.11,000/- as per the Notional Income Chart. 11. Doctor has examined PW.2 who has opined disability to an extent of 40% but he has not stated specifically with regard to particular limb disability so also the whole body disability. Tribunal has taken the disability at 20% to the whole body. This Court deems it appropriate to retain the same as it is justified in the absence of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 specific averment or opinion by the doctor with regard to disability to the limb or to the whole body. 12. In view of the discussions, the loss of future earning capacity due to the disability would be Rs.11,000/- X 12 X 14 X 20% would be Rs.3,69,600/- as against Rs.3,02,400/- awarded by the tribunal. 13. Towards pain and sufferings, tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/-, this Court deems it appropriate to award additional Rs.25,000/- under this head. 14. Medical expenses of Rs.40,804/- is retained. Towards Future medical expenses Rs.60,000/- is retained. Towards loss of earning during treatment Rs.4,500/- is retained. Towards loss of bed rest Rs.54,000/- is retained. Towards conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges Rs.20,000/- is retained. Towards loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- is awarded. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 15. In view of the above discussions, appellant will be entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,98,904/- as against Rs.5,56,704/- as mentioned in the table below. Heads Amount in Rs. Injury, pain and sufferings 1,00,000.00 Medical Expenses 40,804.00 Future Medical expenses 60,000.00 Loss of earning during treatment 4,500.00 Loss of bed rest 54,000.00 Loss of future earning capacity 3,69,600.00 Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges 20,000.00 Loss of amenities 50,000.00 TOTAL 6,98,904-00 16. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER i) Appeal is Allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7556 MFA No. 1850 of 2019 and Addl. MACT. Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura in MVC.No. *540/2017 is modified; iii) Appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,98,904/- along with interest at 6 percent per annum. iv) Respondent - Insurance Company shall pay the balance compensation amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. v) Entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant by way of electronic transfer upon appellant producing relevant bank details on proper identification. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 * Corrected vide Chambers Order dated 05.08.2025