- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6779 MFA No. 10365 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10365 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. D.C. ASHOK S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O M DASARAHALLI, MADALUR POST, SIRA TALUK - 572 137. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATISHA T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SAFEER AHMED D, S/O MUNEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O PESHUMAM MOHALLA, SIRA TOWN - 572 137, (OWNER OF CAR BEARING, REG NO. KA 64 M 0382) 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, RAJA COMPLEX, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137, (POLICY NO. 0714813114P108973044 VALID FROM 22.01.2015 TO 21.01.2016) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6779 MFA No. 10365 of 2018 (BY SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1001/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Sathisha.T learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao who represents Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao learned counsel on record for respondent No.2. Also heard Sri.Keshavamurthy learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This appeal is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira in MVC No.1001/2015 dated 01.09.2017. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6779 MFA No. 10365 of 2018 3. On the ground that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.7,26,000/- as compensation. Projecting that the compensation granted is grossly low, the appellant is before this Court. 4. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the appellant was a Class-I Civil Contractor, was an Agriculturist and he was also a Syndicate Member of Tumkur University by the date of accident. The appellant as a Contractor and Agriculturist was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The appellant produced Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-10 RTCs to establish his occupation as Agriculturist. However, without considering the evidence produced, the Tribunal awarded meager sum as compensation. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal did not award any justifiable sum as compensation under any head and therefore, the compensation granted needs enhancement. 5. Per contra, the submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that, the appellant failed in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6779 MFA No. 10365 of 2018 establishing his actual earnings by the date of accident and also that there is reduction in his earnings subsequent to the accident. Learned counsel submits that, there is no loss of earnings whatsoever and therefore no such evidence was produced by the appellant. 6. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained comminuted sub- trochanteric fracture right femur, right little finger extensor tendon zone 3 injury and soft tissue injuries. Having considered the evidence of PW-3 & 4, the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability in respect of whole body which is permanent in nature as 20%. 7. So far as the income is concerned, though the appellant succeeded in establishing that he was a Contractor and Agriculturist by the date of accident, he could not establish his actual earnings by the date of accident. However, having considered the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of 5 months. But the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- only towards loss of income during the laid-up - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6779 MFA No. 10365 of 2018 period. Likewise, as rightly contended, the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal under all other heads requires marginal enhancement, in the light of the evidence produced by the appellant more particularly regarding his occupation by the date of accident. Undoubtedly, the appellant will not be in a position to attend his duties either as a Contractor or as agriculturist in a effective way with disability of 20% which is permanent in nature in respect of whole body. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/- so that the compensation that would be received by the appellant would be justifiable and which commensurate the injuries and loss sustained. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The compensation that is granted by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sira, through orders in MVC No.1001/2015 dated 01.09.2017, is enhanced by Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6779 MFA No. 10365 of 2018 iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: BHK