- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MR. SYED SHUIB UR-RAHAMAN, S/O. SYED KHALEED UR-REHAMAN, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O NO.941, B STREET, HIDAYATH NAGAR, K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU-560 045. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHAJIL KUMAR, R/O. NO. 35/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD, NEW TARUG PET, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MAHALAKSHMI COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/D 27.05.2019 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.4437/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the orders passed in MVC No.4437/2014 dated 10.09.2016 by the MACT, Bengaluru, whereby the Court had granted compensation of an amount of ₹83,770/-, the claimant is before this Court. 2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of ₹10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, he had sustained permanent disability. There is a crush injury with self amputation of right big and second toe and there is abrasion over both the knees and he was in hospital for 13 days and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 have spent substantial amount for the treatment. The Court has held that the accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Considering the amputation, the Court had granted compensation towards 'pain and suffering' at Rs.40,000/- and for the 'inconvenience caused to the parents during laid up period', an amount of Rs.10,000/- was granted. Towards 'medical expenses' basing on the medical bills, an amount of Rs.13,770/- was granted by the Court. When it comes to the 'loss of future earnings', the Court observes that the accident had taken place on 21.08.2014 and the claimant had taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 13 days and his right foot big toe and second toe were amputated but for the reason best known to him, he has not examined the treated doctor nor placed any material on record to show that he has sustained any permanent disability due to the accidental injuries. In the absence of the oral and documentary evidence on record, question of granting 'future loss of income' does not arise and accordingly no amount was granted. For 'loss of amenities', 'conveyance, food and nourishment & attendant charges', an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 amount of Rs.20,000/- was granted by the Court. Altogether, the compensation of an amount of Rs.83,770/- was awarded. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and the amputation of the two toes i.e., right big and second toe, the Court had not granted any amount on the head of 'loss of future earnings' and even on all other heads, the amount that was granted by the Court is not a reasonable amount. The boy was just 20 years old and for the injuries he had sustained and the impact which is going to have on his future life should have been considered by the Court and he submits that the compensation needs to be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the Court had rightly not granted any amount for the 'loss of future earnings' as no document is placed before the Court with regard to the disability that is sustained by the claimant and even on other heads also, the Court had granted sufficient amount. He submits that the interest ought to have been at the rate of 6% instead of that the Court had granted the interest at the rate of 8% which is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 not correct. Further on all other aspects, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference from this the Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The insurance company has not preferred any appeal. Generally, in all the cases the interest that is granted is at the rate of 6% per annum, whereas in this case, the Court had granted interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Though there is no appeal by the Insurance Company, interest is reduced to 6%. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the claimant had sustained injuries and his right big toe and the second toe were amputated. The Court has given a finding that both the toes are amputed but no material is placed before the Court to show the percentage of disability. The Court had completely rejected the case of the claimant as far as the 'loss of future earning' is concerned. This amputation would definitely have an impact on his future life and the Court ought to have taken this into consideration. The boy was 20 years old and this accident had taken place in the year 2014. Considering the notional income at Rs.8,500/-, the multiplier is '18' and the disability - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 can be safely taken at 20% to the whole body then Rs.8,500 x 12 x 18 x 20% is Rs.3,67,200/- under the head 'loss of future earnings' the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,67,200/-. 7. Then coming to the 'pain and suffering', considering the amputation, an amount of Rs.40,000/- that is granted by the Tribunal is not an adequate amount. Hence, this Court is granting an amount of ₹60,000/-. Then under the head 'inconvenience caused to the parents', an amount of ₹20,000/- is granted by this Court. Towards 'medical expenses' the Court had rightly granted and no interference is needed. Towards 'conveyance, food and transportation', this Court is granting an amount of ₹20,000/- considering the hospitalization and the amputation and the requirement of the claimant. Coming to the 'loss of amenities', the Tribunal had clubbed this with attendant and nourishment charges and had granted only ₹20,000/-. Considering the amputation and the age, which is going to have a long lasting affect on his future life, under the head 'loss of amenities', this Court is granting an amount of ₹50,000/-. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 8. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards 'Legal Expenses'. 9. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Heads Compensation Awarded by Tribunal Compensation Awarded by this Court 1. Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 40,000/- 60,000/- 2. Inconvenience caused to the parents during laid up period : Rs. 10,000/- 20,000/- 3. Medical expenses : Rs. 13,770/- 13,770/- 4. Conveyance, food and nourishment & attendant charges : Rs. 20,000/- 20,000/- 5. Loss of amenities : Rs. 00/- 50,000/- 6. Loss of future earnings : Rs. 00/- 3,67,200/- 7. Legal Expenses : Rs. 00/- 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 83,770/- 5,40,970/- Enhancement : Rs. 4,57,200/- 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.83,770/- to Rs.5,40,970/- and the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. ORDER i) The Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.83,770/- to Rs.5,40,970/-. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. ii) The amount granted by the trial court and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realisation. iii) The respondent - 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. 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. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9458 MFA No. 66 of 2016 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 13 CT:SNN