- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13455 MFA No. 2744 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2744 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RANGANATH, S/O SRI. PARWATHAPPA, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER, NO.73, MADANAYAKANA HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 023. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, RANGE OFFICE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064. 2. THE DIRECTOR, KGID, VISHESHWARAIAH TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.C. YOGISH, AGA FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2015, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 714/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 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 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13455 MFA No. 2744 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C. No.714/2013 dated 29.10.2013 by the XIX Additional S.CJ. & M.A.C.T., Bengaluru, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 28.12.2012 at about 7.30 p.m., he was proceeding on the motorcycle on S.M.Road, when he reached near K.G.Halli Bridge, a jeep came in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and suddenly turned towards the right side without any signal. As such, it dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. It is the case of the claimant that he has examined the doctor. As per the doctor, the claimant had sustained disability to the extent of 39% to the particular limb. When it comes to the income, it is the case of the claimant that he is working as a 'carpenter' and was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- p.m. The Tribunal had considered the evidence of the doctor and taken the disability at 1/3rd of the limb disability and granted the compensation as per the table given below. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13455 MFA No. 2744 of 2014 Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Towards pain and agony 27,000.00 2. Towards impatient 1,500.00 3. Towards medical expenses 30,000.00 4. Towards loss of income 18,000.00 5. Towards disability 2,38,680.00 Total 3,15,180.00 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is not just a reasonable compensation and for the fracture injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation under the heads 'pain and agony' and 'attendant and nourishment charges', the compensation was not adequately granted and when it comes to the income, when the claimant was earning an amount of Rs.18,000/-, the Tribunal had taken the income at only Rs.6,000/-. Further, when he had sustained the disability, the Tribunal had not granted the compensation for 'loss of future prospects'. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation under the head 'loss of future prospects' and he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meera Devin and another vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others1, Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company 1 2014 ACJ 1012 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13455 MFA No. 2744 of 2014 Limited2 and Muhammed vs. United India Ins. Co., Ltd., and others3 and he has also relied on the judgment of this Court in case of M.S.Lokesh vs. Achappa and another4. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel submits that as the claimant is a 'carpenter' by profession and the disability he had sustained would have an impact on his future prospects, the Tribunal ought to have taken the 'future prospects' also into consideration, which has not been taken and seeks for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-KGID submits that the Tribunal had rightly considered and granted the compensation. He submits that in fact, the calculation that was made by the Tribunal while computing the 'loss of income' is a wrong calculation. He submits that the claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, under the head of 'pain and 2 2014 ACJ 627 3 2023 ACJ 894 4 2017 ACJ 1065 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13455 MFA No. 2744 of 2014 agony', this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/-. Coming to the 'Attendant and Nourishment, etc' for five days hospitalization, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.5,000/-. As far as 'medical expenses' are concerned, no interference is called for from this Court as the amount is granted basing on the evidence. Coming to the income, there is no evidence adduced to show that he was earning an amount of Rs.18,000/. As the accident is of the year 2012, this Court is taking income at Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, the 'loss of income during laid up period' for three months, it would be Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000 x 3). Coming to the disability, according to the learned counsel, the disability to the whole body is 13% and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant the 'future prospects'. As the claimant was aged 28 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '17'. Hence, Rs.7,000 x 12 x 17 x 13/100 = Rs.1,85,640/-. Accordingly, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.1,85,640/- under the head 'loss of future prospects in life'. Towards 'loss of amenities', this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/- and for the 'future operation', the doctor has deposed that the claimant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13455 MFA No. 2744 of 2014 requires Rs.30,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted by this Court. 6. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala vs. M. Malathi and Another5, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 7. 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 agony : Rs. 27,000.00 40,000.00 2. Attendants, food, nourishment, etc. : Rs. 1,500.00 5,000.00 3. Medical expenses : Rs. 30,000.00 30,000.00 4. Loss of income during laid up period : Rs. 18,000.00 21,000.00 5. Loss of future prospects in life : Rs. 2,38,680.00 1,85,640.00 6. Loss of amenities : Rs. -- 30,000.00 7. Future operation : Rs. -- 30,000.00 8. Legal Expenses : Rs. -- 10,000.00 TOTAL : Rs. 3,15,180.00 3,51,640.00 Enhancement : Rs. 36,460.00 5 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13455 MFA No. 2744 of 2014 8. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.3,51,640/-. i) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.3,15,180/- to Rs.3,51,640/-. ii) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. iii) The respondent No.2 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. iv) 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. v) No costs. vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:BHK