✦ High Court of India

The High Court

Case Details

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14289 MFA No. 6484 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6484 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: MR.SANDEEP KUMAR G., S/O GOPAL K., AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/A NO.108, 4TH CROSS 1ST MAIN, R.H. RANGANATH COLONY OPP. NEAR BHEL DEEPANJALI NAGAR BANGALORE-560 026 (BY SRI. SHIVAREDDY T.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.SOMASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE Y.APPANNA REDDY R/A NO.566, DOMMASANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-562 125 …APPELLANT

Legal Reasoning

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., NO.31, TBR TOWERS K.A.MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560 002

Legal Reasoning

3. SRI K.S.BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVANANDAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO.9, APPAJAPPA APARTMENT 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560 018 (BY SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14289 MFA No. 6484 of 2014 NO.3420/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in M.V.C.No.3420/2011 dated 08.07.2014 by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (SCCH-5) at Bangalore, the appellant/claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 20.02.2011, the claimant was riding his Bajaj Discover motor cycle along with pillion rider and they were moving from South to North direction. At about 1:30 p.m., on Sagara to Shimoga Main Road, near Ayanooru Village, Opposite to Government Hospital, Ayanooru, a Ford car came in very high speed and dashed to the electric pole and dashed to the two wheeler. As a result, the claimant suffered broken bone injuries and he was shifted to Mc.Gann Government Hospital, Shimoga. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14289 MFA No. 6484 of 2014 3. The Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the table given below: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 30,000/- 2. Disability : Rs. 20,000/- 3. Medical Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- 4. Conveyance and incidental charges : Rs. 20,000/- 5. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,00,000/- 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal had not granted just and reasonable compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal had failed to grant any compensation towards loss of future income and loss of income during the laid up period and even under the head of pain and suffering, the amount that is granted is not reasonable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had reasonably granted the compensation and there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14289 MFA No. 6484 of 2014 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. Considering the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. As per the evidence of the doctor, the claimant had sustained disability of 20% to the limb. This Court has perused the order and the Tribunal had not considered the disability to the whole body. This Court is taking the disability at 7% and as there is no evidence on record to show the income to the claimant, as this is an accident of the year 2011, this Court is taking an amount of Rs.6,500/- as the income. Hence, towards loss of future earning will come to an amount of Rs.98,280/- (Rs.6,500x12x18x7/100). Towards loss of earning during the laid up period, an amount of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500x3). The Tribunal had granted reasonable amount towards loss of amenities, conveyance and incidental charges and medical expenses. Hence, there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14289 MFA No. 6484 of 2014 Another1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 8. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: SL. No. Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings : Rs. 30,000/- 40,000/- 2. Disability : Rs. 20,000/- 3. Medical Expenses : Rs. 5,000/- 00/- 5,000/- 4. Conveyance and incidental charges : Rs. 20,000/- 20,000/- 5. Loss of amenities : Rs. 25,000/- 25,000/- 6. 7. Loss of earning during the laid up period Loss of future earning 8. Legal Expenses TOTAL Enhancement : : Rs. 00/- 19,500/- Rs. 00/- 98,280/- : Rs. 00/- : Rs. 1,00,000/- : Rs. 1,17,780/- 10,000/- 2,17,780/- 9. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,17,780/-. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount of 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14289 MFA No. 6484 of 2014 Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,17,780/-. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The respondent No.2 - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iii. 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. iv. No costs. v. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments