- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2269 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MAYURA, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O NARAYANA BANGERA, R/O HOSAMANE NAILADI, BILLADI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AYUSHI AGARWAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VASANTHI, (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPODENT NO.1, NOW DECEASED LATE ANAND POOJARI) AGED 51 YEARS, W/O LATE ANANDA POOJARI, R/O ABHINAV BEHIND MANTAP, SALIGRAMA POST, PARAMPALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI VILLAGE. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE. KUNDAPURA, 1ST FLOOR, MASTI TOWER, MAIN ROAD, MASTHI KATTE, KUNDAPURA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. GOVINDARAJAN, ADV., FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 375/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PART-HEARD, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.375/2016 dated 25.02.2021 by the Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi (Sitting at Kundapura), Kundapura, whereby the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.2,88,700/-, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The claim petition is filed by the claimant seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.10.2015 at 2.30 pm., the claimant as the rider of the motorcycle was proceeding from Brahmavara side towards Udupi side. When he reached near Rude set cross of Heruru village, on NH-66, the driver of Mini Lorry by driving it in rash and negligent manner came from a cross road from the eastern side and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. The claimant fell down and suffered severe injury on his head. He was shifted to Brahmavara Mahesh hospital and after giving first aid treatment, he was taken to Manipal KMC hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient till 28.10.2015. Due to the accident the claimant had sustained head injury, first treated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 conservatively, but he was in the hospital for 3 days and the Tribunal taking the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and the evidence of the doctor is that the claimant had sustained 28.81% disability and the Tribunal had taken the disability at 10% and had awarded the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads Rs. Compensation amount awarded 1. Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs. 1,72,800/- 2. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 3. Towards loss of income during treatment period Rs. 16,000/- 4. Towards medical expenses Rs. 6,896/- 5. Towards conveyance Rs. 5,000/- 6. Towards diet and nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 7. Towards attendant charges Rs. 3,000/- 8. Towards amenities Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 2,88,700/- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant submits that when he had sustained the head injury, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads is not just and reasonable. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, when the evidence of the doctor is that the claimant had sustained the disability at 28%, without any basis the Tribunal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 had taken the disability at 10%. Even in the cross examination also they could not elicit anything. Even under the head of loss of income during the laid up period, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is further submitted that on all counts there needs to be enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the claimant was treated conservatively. The assessment is made by two different doctors and they have not physically examined the claimant. It is submitted that the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance, Rs.10,000 towards diet and nourishment, Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities which are on the higher side. It is further submitted that on all the counts, the Tribunal had awarded the higher compensation and no interference is called for. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Though there is no appeal filed by the Insurance Company, while computing the compensation, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 if the amount is excessively awarded, the Court can as well interfere with the same. Under the head of pain and suffering, considering the head injury which is conservatively treated, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.50,000/-. This Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. As the claimant was there in the hospital for 3 days, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges. Coming to the permanent disability, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company had rightly argued that the doctor, without any basis had assessed the disability at 28%, but the Tribunal had taken the disability at 10%. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to take 12% as disability. As this accident had taken place in the year 2015, as per the chart, this Court is inclined to take the income at Rs.9,000/-, it comes to an amount of (9,000x12x18x12/100) = Rs.2,33,280/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-, but this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, towards loss of income during the laid up period, for 3 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 months this Court is granting an amount of (9000X3)= Rs.27,000/-. 6. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 7. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Rs. Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal Compensation amount awarded by this Court 1. Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs. 1,72,800/- 2,33,280/- 2. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 40,000/- 3. Towards loss of income during treatment period Rs. 16,000/- 27,000/- 4. Towards medical expenses Rs. 6,896/- - 5. Towards conveyance Rs. 5,000/- 3,000/- 6. Towards diet and nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 7. Towards Rs. 3,000/- 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 attendant charges 8. Towards amenities Rs. 25,000/- 30,000/- 9. Legal expenses Rs. - 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,88,700/- 3,43,280/- Enhanced amount Rs. 54,580/- 8. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.3,43,280/-. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.2,88,700/- to Rs.3,43,280/-. As the Tribunal had already passed an order of pay and recover, the insurance company shall pay and recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii) The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall pay and recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. iv) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34561 MFA No. 2269 of 2022 date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi) No costs. vii) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1