Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 36402 (KAR)

R MADHUKUMAR v. RAVI S

MFA/6889/2023 · 2026-08-20

T M Nadaf

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6889 OF 2023(MV-I) BETWEEN: R. MADHUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O G. RAVICHANDRAN, R/AT NO 3695, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, R.P. ROAD, NANJANGUD TOWN, MYSORE - 17 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR A V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAVI S., S/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT ROPLINE, THIGADA GRAMA, TANIGEBAILE POST, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 01. 2. SATHISH S., S/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 29, DANDUBITTAHARA, LALBAGH ESTATE, N.R. PURA TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 01. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GROUND FLOOR, VINAYAKA COMPLEX, BENGALURU HONNAVAR ROAD, NEAR DEEPAK PETROL BUNK, B H ROAD, SHIMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 16.07.2026 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1989, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.07.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1131/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, NANJANGUD, 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 T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant, assailing the Judgment and Award dated 05.07.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT, Nanjangud1, in MVC No.1131/2016. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 1 the Tribunal, for short - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 3. Facts germane to file the present appeal are as under: In an accident occurred on 06.08.2015 at about 1:30 pm, the claimant R.Madhukumar, aged 23 years, suffered fracture of right femur, which has resulted in surgery for intramedullary nailing. The doctor who has been examined as PW.2 to assess the disability has stated that, the claimant has sustained disability of 33% to the right lower limb and 11% to the whole body. The Tribunal while reasoning its Judgment, at paragraph No.20, relying on the Judgment of this Court in GIRIJAPPA MALLAPPA AND ANOTHER VS. SRIDHARAJ URS @ TIRUPATI2, has held that PW.2 doctor was not a treated doctor. In that view of the matter, discarded the entire evidence of PW.2 and proceeded to award compensation of Rs.2,06,391.09/- with interest @ 6% per annum, declining to grant compensation under head 'future loss of income' 2 ILR 1997 KAR 1213 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 as well as 'loss of amenities'. It is this Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, is called in question in this appeal. 4. Heard, Ms.Pavana.B.K, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Sampath.K, learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Insurer. 5. Ms.Pavana.B.K, with all vehemence submits that though the doctor was not a treated doctor, he was doctor with MBBS degree and orthopedic surgeon, he has evaluated disability of the claimant on the basis of medical records produced by the claimant before him. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered fracture of femur bone, which is a main bone in human skeleton. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have considered 1/3rd of the disability i.e., 11% of 33% and awarded appropriate compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. She further submits that the Tribunal has considered monthly - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 income at the rate of Rs.7,500/- which is very meager when compared to the amount fixed under the Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for settling the dispute before the Lok-Adalat for the year 2015, which is Rs.9,000/- per month in respect of unskilled labor, in the absence of any proof of income. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under 'loss of amenities'. She further submits that the claimant was an in-patient for three days and underwent surgery. The compensation awarded under other heads, except 'medical expenses' are inadequate and requires reconsideration. With this sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 6. Refuting the submissions of Ms.Pavana, Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer with all vehemence submits that in the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has considered appropriate income and in view of Judgment referred by the Tribunal, the doctor not being a treated doctor, declined to award any - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. As such, the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal does not require any interference and sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this court has perused the entire appeal paper. 8. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered fracture of femur bone. It is also not in dispute that he has undergone surgery for intramedullary nailing. The doctor though was not a treated doctor, but an Orthopedic surgeon and an expert in assessing disability, due to the fracture suffered by the claimant. The doctor upon considering the earlier medical records has stated that, the claimant has suffered limb disability at 33% and whole body disability at 11%. The Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that the doctor is an Orthopedic Surgeon and assessed the limb disability on the basis of medical records. In that view of the matter, the reasoning of the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 Tribunal, declining to accept the disability assessed and stated by the Doctor is unsustainable in law. 9. Further, a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal under all the heads, except medical expenses seems very meager and it requires re-consideration. The Tribunal has not at all awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'. For the foregoing reason, this Court proceeds to re-assess the compensation, which is as under: Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs. 1. Pain and suffering 60,000-00 60,000-00 2. Medical expenses 80,041.09 80,041.09 3. Incidental expenses 15,600-00 15,600-00 4. Loss of income during laid up period 45,750-00 54,000-00 (9,000 x 6) 5. Conveyance 5,000-00 5,000-00 6. Loss of amenities - 50,000-00 7 Loss of future income - 2,13,840-00 (9,000x12x18x11%) TOTAL 2,06,391-09 4,78,481.09 10. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,72,090/- (4,78,481.09 - - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 2,06,391.09), rounded off at Rs.2,73,000/- which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 05.07.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & MACT, Nanjangud, in MVC No.1131/2016 is modified and the compensation is enhanced. (iii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,73,000/-, with interest @ 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. (iv) Respondent No.3 - Insurer shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation along with accrued interest stated supra within six - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010524532023 NC: 2026:KHC:45124 MFA No. 6889 of 2023 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal. (v) Upon deposit the entire amount shall be released in favor of the appellant/ claimant on proper identification. (vi) The Registry to send back the trial Court record to the concerned Tribunal, without causing any delay. (vii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 ct-vn