- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3167 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: SRI.S. RAJASHKANNAN S/O G M SUGVANNAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS C/O NARAYANAPPA M R/AT NO.46, MUNI NARASIMMAIAH GARDEN TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU-87 AND ALSO AT NO.28 OPPOSITE TNHB RAILWAY STATION, HOSUR TOWN, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUGUNA R REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. VENKATESH S/O GOVINDAPPA MAJOR IN AGE R/AT HANDENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REG DOFF PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK NICHOLAS PACANED TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DTD:20.08.2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 11.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5573/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XXI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in MVC No.5573 of 2008. 2. The injured claimant, aged 36 years, met with an accident on 28.01.2008, and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,20,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.70,101/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 claimant sustained grievous and simple injuries, but the Tribunal granted meagre amounts under the other heads. The amount spent by the claimant towards medical expenses was reimbursed under the claim policy as per Exhibit P.4 and therefore, the said amount was not granted by the Tribunal. It is contended that no amount is granted under the head loss of income during laid up period on the ground that he is a partner in the business, in spite of producing balance sheet for the relevant period to show loss of turn over in the business. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities. No amount is granted for loss of expectation of life and future treatment, and rate of interest to be granted at 9% per annum instead of 6%. Thus, requested for enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. The manner of accident shows that, on 28.01.2008, while petitioner was driving the car bearing No.CAO-7870 in a careful manner by observing the traffic rules, at about 10.00 p.m. one Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-51-6865 came in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 his vehicle. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries and he took treatment in different hospitals. 6. The first respondent remained absent before the Tribunal and placed ex-parte. The second respondent appeared and stated that they issued policy to the tempo traveller, but the driver of the tempo traveller was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the car driver/petitioner. Even in the history of RTA, it was mentioned that petitioner was riding four wheeler and hit by another four wheeler. The second respondent neither examined the driver nor he stepped into the witness box. 7. Petitioner sustained severe bleeding injuries and was treated as inpatient for fracture of right accetabulum. He examined a doctor as P.W.2 and he stated that the petitioner undergone surgery for right accetabalum on 02.03.2008 i.e., open reduction and internal fixation of right accetabalum fracture with reconstruction plate was done under spinal anesthesia and he was discharged on 18.02.2008. Petitioner also examined another doctor as P.W.3 and he stated that petitioner came to his clinic complaining of pain in the right hip - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 region while walking, standing for long time and climbing stairs. He further stated that, recent X-ray of right hip joint reveals that, petitioner sustained malunion of right iliac bone and thereby opined disability of the petitioner towards his lower limb at 45% and 15% towards his whole body. In the cross examination, P.W.3 stated that the petitioner has no difficulty in carrying on his occupation by sitting at one place. 8. Petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1. He stated in his cross examination that even prior to the accident, he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and even after the accident, he is getting the same income. Exhibit P7 is the partnership deed. P.W.1 himself admitted that, said computer consultancy is still in existence and there is no reduction in his income. As he is continuing the business and there is no reduction in the income after accident, the tribunal held that the question of granting loss of future income does not arise. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. 9. Petitioner sustained malunion of right iliac bone. As such, he cannot walk for long distance. He cannot climb stairs and cannot stand for long time and use any other means. He - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 was treated as inpatient in two different hospitals for a period of one month. Petitioner spent Rs.70,937/- towards medical expenses, but the said amount was reimbursed through medi- claim insurance. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi and Another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 861, wherein at paragraph 15, it was held as under: “15. In fine, we hold that the amount received as part of Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from compensation as calculated by the concerned Tribunal, adjudicating a claim for compensation under the MVA which may also include compensation under the head of medical expenses, if claimed. These two stand on a different footing – one is statutory while the other is contractual and the latter is only a sequitur of premiums having been paid in the past while the other is an entitlement as consequence of an accident or death in a motor vehicle accident.” 11. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant and pay Rs.70,937/- plus Rs.15,101/- as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 mentioned in Exhibit P11, totalling Rs.86,038/- is to be granted towards medical expenses. 12. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation and other relevant factors, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.40,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.40,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. He might have not attended any other work at least for a period of two months due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, Rs.40,000/- (20000x2) is granted towards loss of income during the laid up period. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,81,038/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.70,101/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2023 SC 186, wherein it was held that he is entitled for future prospects. Even as per the medical evidence, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 petitioner sustained only 15% disability to the whole body and as such, he is not entitled for future prospects. 14. Therefore, the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Medical expenses 86,038/- 2. Pain and Suffering 75,000/- 3. Loss of amenities 40,000/- 4.Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 40,000/- 5. Loss of earning during the laid up period 40,000/- Total 2,81,038/- 15. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.2,81,038/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The respondent insurance company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29711 MFA No. 3167 of 2013 Rs.2,10,937/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75