Gangadhar @ Gangadharaiah v. Vijay K C

NC:(2026:KHC:577( MFA(No.(3363(of(2017( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(6 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(C(M(JOSHI( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(3363(OF(2017((MV-I)(

BETWEEN:((

(

GANGADHAR,@,GANGADHARAIAH,,, S/O,LATE,MUDDAPPA,@,MUDDEGOWDARU,, AGED,ABOUT,61,YEARS,,

R/AT,SOMANAHALLI,VILLAGE,, C,N,HALLI,TALUK,,, NOW,RESIDING,AT,K,B,CROSS,,

TIPTUR,TALUK,-,572,201., …APPELLANT, ,

(BY,SRI,MANJUNATH,N,D,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

(

1., VIJAY,K,C,, S/O,CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,K,G, AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS,Digitallytisigned by0NANDINI0R R/A,@,22,,1ST,FLOOR,, Location: 2ND,CROSS,, HIGH0COURT NAGARABHAVI,ROAD,,OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU,-,560044., (OWNER,OF,THE,VEHICLE,HYUNDAI,ACCENT,CAR, BEARING,NO,DL-03-AL-1019, NOW,REGISTERED,AS,NO,KA-03-MR-9548), ,

2., VIKAS,SRIVASTAVA,,, S/O,LAKSHMI,PRASAD,SRIVASTAVA,, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS,, R/A,A-502,,SALAPURIA,SPLENDOUR,, NC:(2026:KHC:577( MFA(No.(3363(of(2017( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( 20,,N,R,COLONY,,AIRPORT,ROAD,, BENGALURU,-,560,048., (POLICY,HOLDER,OF,THE,VEHICLE,HYUNDAI, ACCENT,CAR,BEARING,REG.NO.,DL-03-AL-1019,, NOW,REG,,AS,NO.,KA-03-MR-9548), ,

3., THE,MANAGER,,, TATA,AIG,GENERAL,INSURANCE,CO.,LTD.,, TH5 ,FLOOR,,WEST,ENTRANCE,,KHANIJA,BHAVAN,, RACE,COURSE,ROAD,,BENGALURU-560,001., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI,JANARDHAN,REDDY,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R-3;, ,,,,,,NOTICE,TO,R-1,&,R-2,IS,DISPENSED,WITH,V/O,DATED,, ,,,,,,18.03.2021), , , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,U/S,173(1),OF,MV,ACT,AGAINST,THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 03.12.2016, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.157/2015,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,SENIOR,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND, XIX,MACT,,ITINERATE,COURT,,C.N.HALLI,,PARTLY,ALLOWING, THE, CLAIM, PETITION, FOR, COMPENSATION, AND, SEEKING, ENHANCEMENT,OF,COMPENSATION.,, , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, HEARING,, THIS, DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,C,M,JOSHI, , , ORAL((JUDGMENT( , 1., Heard, the, learned, counsel, appearing, for, the, appellant, and, learned, counsel, appearing, for, respondent, No.3.,

¶2Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award in MVC 157/2015 by learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkanayakanahally, dated 31.12.2016, the petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶3The factual matrix of the case is that on

05.09.2013 at about 05.00 p. m., when the petitioner was proceeding on the left side of the road on a cycle, a car bearing No. KA.03.MR.9548 came in negligent manner from Tumkur side and dashed against the petitioner resulting in injuries to him. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Tiptur, where he was inpatient for about 20 days and he underwent surgeries for his fractures. It is contended that the petitioner was a coolie aged about 60 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and due to the injuries suffered he is unable to do any work and as such, he sought adequate compensation from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶4On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel. But they did not file any written statement. Respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company appeared and filed a written statement contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and therefore, the liability of respondent No. 3 may be absolved.

¶5On basis of above contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the Tribunal and the petitioner was examined as PW1. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P11 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,68,500/- as below:

Sl. No. Description Amount

¶1Loss of income and future income Rs. 97,200/-

¶2Towards injury Nos. 1 to 6 Rs. 48,000/-

¶2Food, nourishment and attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-

¶4Medical expenses Rs. 18,300/-

Total Rs. 1,68,500/-

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶6Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future earnings is on the lower side and that the notional income considered by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the wages fixed under Minimum Wages Act. He submits that compensation under the remaining heads also needs enhancement and therefore, reassessment of the quantum has to be made.

¶7Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submits that compensation determined by the Tribunal is proper and correct and there is no need for any enhancement.

¶8A careful perusal of the records would reveal that the petitioner, who is aged about 60 years had suffered anterior dislocation of right shoulder joint and fracture of the right trochanter bone of both the hip. Apart from that, he had also suffered multiple abrasions over the knee joint, both forearms and nose. The petitioner was admitted to the hospital and he was inpatient for about 18 days, during which time the dislocation of the right shoulder was reduced with a strapping and the fracture of the right trochanter was treated with skeletal traction for about 3 weeks.

¶9PW2 who assessed the disability states that the petitioner has got disability of 41% and out of which 20% is for the right upper limb and 10% towards the

shortening of the right lower limb. The Tribunal assessed the functional disability of the petitioner at 20%.

¶10The learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that the functional disability has to be taken on the higher side. On a reassessment of the evidence, it is clear that the petitioner was aged about 60 years and was a coolie. The fracture of the trochanter bone and the dislocation of the shoulder joint definitely results in disability to the petitioner and it escalates with the age factor which is 60 years.

¶11Assessing these aspects, functional disability of the petitioner needs to be considered and owing to the fact that he was a coolie aged about 60 years, it is just and proper to assess the functional disability at 20% as is done by the Tribunal and it does not require any enhancement.

¶12Sofar as the notional income is concerned, the guidelines issued by the KSLSA for the purpose of

settlement of the disputes before the Lok adalat prescribe a notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month for the year 2013. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, notional income is considered at Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the loss of future income due to disability is calculated as: Rs.8,000/- x 12 x 9 x 20%= Rs.1,72,800. As a consequence, taking the laid up period to be 4 months, the petitioner is also entitled for Rs.32,000/- (Rs,8,000 x4).

¶13The petitioner had suffered fracture of the trochanter bone and he was on traction for 3 weeks and also he had suffered dislocation of the shoulder joint. Considering this, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to him under the head of pain and suffering.

¶14The petitioner was inpatient for about 18 days and therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to him

under the head of food, conveyance, attendant charges and nourishment.

¶15Considering the age of the petitioner, the compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life is awarded at Rs.40,000/-.

¶16The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,300/- towards the medical expenses, which do not require any reconsideration.

¶17In the result, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,03,600/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Description Amount

¶1Loss of future earnings due to disability Rs.1,72,800/-

¶2Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 32,000/-

¶3Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-

¶4Food, conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/-

¶5Loss of amenities in life Rs. 40,000/-

¶6Medical expenses Rs. 18,300/-

Total Less: awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement Rs.3,33,100/-Rs.1,68,500/-Rs.1,64,600/-

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for additional sum of Rs.1,64,600/- together with interest at 6% p.a.

¶18For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,64,600/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.

(iii) The rest of the terms and conditions ordered by the Tribunal remain unaltered.

(iv) Respondent No.3-Insurance Company

is directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks from the date of this judgment.

Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41