- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THIMMAIAH S/O LATE ERABHOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT THITHIGANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572137 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HALKURAPPA S/O ELLAIAH BHOVI MAJOR R/AT BETTADAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKANAHALLI VADDARAHATTI KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572137 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR NO.1/2, 59TH CROSS 4TH 'M' BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.929/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, 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 PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10.02.2020 passed in MVC.No.929/2017 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Sira (for short ‘the tribunal’). This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the tribunal. 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 14.04.2017, the petitioner was a pedestrian, at that time a bike bearing Registration No.KA-64-K-9798 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was shifted to a Government Hospital, where he took treatment. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 Due to the injuries sustained and the financial expenditure spent, he filed a claim petition against the respondents. 4. On appearance, respondent No.1 did not file a statement of objection. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company filed a statement of objection and denied the claim of the claimant. On the basis of material placed on record, both oral and documentary, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest at 7% per annum, fixing the liability jointly against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation within one month from the date of the award. Claimant being dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation is before this Court seeking enhancement. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side, income assessed by the tribunal is on the lower side and on other heads also, compensation awarded is meager and same requires to be enhanced. Therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal and consequently enhance the compensation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company sustains the order passed by the tribunal by contending that there is no error or arbitrariness in the impugned order passed by the tribunal. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant- claimant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. The occurrence of the accident and involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained due to the road traffic accident have been proved and established by production of Exs.P1 to P11. Negligence is rightly attributed against the rider of the motorcycle. 8. Now coming to the question of age, avocation, income for computation of compensation. The age of the claimant as on the date of occurrence of the accident is 56 years, the multiplier is taken at '9', which does not call for interference. The Tribunal has taken the income on the basis of notional income at Rs.8,000/-. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the claimant that the income requires to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 enhanced to Rs.11,000/- in consonance with the Legal Services Authorities Chart for the year 2017. 9. The claimant has got examined Doctor as PW.2, who opined the disability to an extent of 30% to the right femur fracture and 18% to the right tibia of right knee joint weakness. In all, combined physical disability is at 48% and whole body disability is at 16%. Whereas the Tribunal has taken the disability at 12%. 10. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the claimant that the disability requires to be taken at 16% as there is no contra material placed by the Insurance Company for the tribunal to reduce the disability to 12% as against the expert opinion of the Doctor, PW.2. Therefore, the loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability would be Rs.1,90,080/- (Rs.11,000 x 12 x 9 x 16%) as against Rs.1,03,680/-. 11. Towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- is awarded as against Rs.25,000/-. 12. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded Rs.43,861/-. Same is retained. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 13. Towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges, in all, Rs.30,000/- is awarded, considering the nature of injuries and age of the claimant. 14. Towards loss of income during laid up period, the tribunal has awarded Rs.16,000/-. The claimant would require at-least three months period to recuperate and to get back to his normal day to day activities. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.11,000 x 3) under this head. 15. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, Rs.30,000/- is awarded as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Towards future medical expenses, though Doctor has opined 50,000/- is required, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-. 17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,01,941/- as against Rs.2,24,541/- as mentioned in the table below: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount of compensation awarded 1 Loss of future income 1,90,080-00 2 Pain and suffering 50,000-00 3 Loss of amenities 30,000-00 4 Loss of income during laid-up period 33,000-00 5 Food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 30,000-00 6 Medical expenses 43,861-00 7 Future medical expenses 25,000-00 TOTAL 4,01,941-00 18. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Sira in MVC No.929/2017, is modified. iii) The appellant/claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,01,941/- as against Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at 7% per annum. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2104 MFA No. 1560 of 2022 iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the respondent - insurance company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. v) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellant-claimant as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimant upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification. vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact. vii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6