Manjunath, v. Rangaraju B R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4200 OF 2023(MV-I) BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH, S/O PAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT MACHONGANAHALLI, BALLENHALLI POST, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK – 571 426. REPRESENTED THE APPELLANT BY HIS WIFE LEELAVATHI M.S., W/O MANJUNATH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1RANGARAJU B.R., S/O RANGEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.3, BETTADHA HOSURU, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, KRISHNARJAPETE TALUK – 571 426. (OWNER OF PASSION PRO M/C KA-54 H-4760)

¶2THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COM. LTD.,

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42152( MFA(No.(4200(of(2023( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010304492023( ( ( DIVISIONAL,OFFICE,, NO.,1134,,DEVARU,MANSON,, PRINCE,OF,WALES,ROAD,,, BALLAL,CIRCLE,, CHAMARAJAPURAM,, MYSURU,-,570,005., (INSURER,OF,PASSION,, PRO,M/C,KA-54,H-4760), …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SHANKARA,REDDY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,, ,,,,,,VIDE,ORDER,DATED,09.10.2025,NOTICE,TO, ,,,,,,R1,IS,DISPENSED,WITH), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED:06.07.2022, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.884/2018, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, PRL., JUDGE,,COURT,OF,SMALL,CAUSES,AS,A,PRESIDING,OFFICER,, MACT,,MYSURU,,PARTLY,ALLOWING,THE,CLAIM,PETITION,FOR, COMPENSATION,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, under,Section, 173(1),of,Motor, Vehicles, Act,,1988,, by,Claimant, in,M.V.C,No.884/2018,,calling,in, question, the, Judgment, and, Award, dated, 06.07.2022,

passed by the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru1, seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶2The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶3Heard Prakash.H.C, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant and Sri.C. Shankara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-United India Insurance Company Limited. Vide order dated 09.10.2025 notice to respondent No.1 dispensed with.

¶4Sri.Prakash.M.H., learned counsel with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded appropriate compensation under the head pain and suffering in view of injuries suffered and treatment resulting in surgery. The claimant has suffered the following injuries:

1 "Tribunal" for short

1) Sutured wound on the right parietal region 2) Sub Dural hematoma Gliosis of left pronto temporal lobes. 3) Fracture of Zygomatic arch, temporal and parietal region on right side. 4) Left Largo frontoparieto temporal sub Dural hematoma with mass effect.

¶5Learned counsel further submits that as per wound certificate at Ex.P8 petitioner sustained injuries stated supra and as per Ex.P12 – Discharge summary, the claimant was an in-patient for a period from 21.01.2018 to

27.04.2018, wherein he was diagnosed to have sustained "Left Largo frontoparieto temporal sub Dural hematoma with mass effect". Further, he underwent surgery for left FTP decompressive tracheotomy with evacuation of SDH and elective tracheotomy was done on 09.02.2018 and was administered other conservative treatment and advised for regular follow up treatment. Further, the claimant took treatment for the periods from 21.10.2018 to 27.10.2018

and

27.05.2019 to

01.06.2019 and underwent Re exploration with Bone flap removal with wound debridement with primary closure on 29.05.2019.

¶6The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of Doctor-PW.2, wherein he has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent physical disability at 90% to whole body, due to traumatic brain injury and he has socio adaptive dysfunction of 90%, despite this medical evidence the Tribunal has taken disability at 45%. Further, he submits that in view of 90% disability, he was required to be taken care at least by an attendant throughout his life. This has not been considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. So also he submits that the compensation awarded under other heads are all negligible and requires re-consideration. With this, he sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶7Refuting the submissions, Sri.C.Shankara Reddy, with all vehemence submits that the Tribunal considered the income at the rate of Rs.13,750/- and considered 45% disability towards loss of future earning and awarded Rs.8,17,000/-, towards pain and sufferings Rs.85,000/-, towards medical expenses Rs.9,88,000/- and awarded appropriate compensation under all other heads, which is just and proper and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶8Having heard the rival submissions, perused the entire appeal paper as well as Trial Court record.

¶9The age of the claimant was 51 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '11' and the same has been considered by the Tribunal.

¶10Since the claimant suffered 100% disability and crippled of his day to day affairs and would require service of an attendant throughout his life, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in KAJAL VS. JAGDISH

CHAND reported in AIR 2020 SC 776 and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SATTAR MUJAHID KHAN S. VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND OTHERS in M.F.A.No.7623/2022 and other connected matters disposed on 13.03.2026 is required to be applied in the case on hand and the compensation shall be reassessed and awarded appropriate compensation. The Medical evidence supported by oral evidence of the Doctor lucidly indicates that the functional disability suffered is 100% when compared to the avocation the claimant he was discharging prior to the accident. In view considering 100% functional disability, the claimant requires appropriate future medical expenses. In view of the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration.

¶11Accordingly, this Court proceeds to reassess the compensation which is as follows:

Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal In Rs. By this Court In Rs.

¶1Pain and Sufferings 85,000-00 3,00,000-00

¶2Loss of amenities and happiness and frustration of life 75,000-00 3,00,000-00

¶3Medical expenses and hospital charges 9,88,000-00 9,88,000-00

¶4Loss of earning during laid up period 75,000-00 -

¶5Towards Food and nourishment and other sundry expenses 70,000-00 70,000-00

¶6Loss of future earnings 8,17,000-00 20,62,500-00 (12,500+25% X 12x11)

¶7Future medical expenses 50,000-00 2,00,000-00

¶8Towards attendant charges (8000X12X11) - 10,56,000-00

TOTAL 21,60,000-00 49,76,500-00

¶12Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for re-assessed compensation of Rs.28,16,500/- (Rs.49,76,500 – 21,60,000) rounded off to Rs.28,17,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the rate of petition till realization.

¶13For he foregoing reasons this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.28,17,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, by modifying the Judgement and Award dated 06.07.2022 in MVC No.884/2018 passed by the Tribunal.

(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest within six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

(iv) Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall release 25% of the amount to the claimant on proper identification and deposit the balance 75% in an interest bearing FDR with any Nationalized Bank, for a period of 5 years. The Bank shall

not permit any loan on the amount in deposit, without an order by the Court/Tribunal.

(v) The trial Court record shall be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Tribunal without causing any delay.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 ct-vn