- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10333 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SHARANABASAPPA M.N, S/O SRI. MALKAPPANATHI, AGED 27 YEARS, R/AT #187 E, KALTHANGARGA, GULBARGA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.531/144, 150 FEET RING ROAD, HSR LAYOUT, AGARA, BANGALORE - 560 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.V. SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANU SOLOMAN, MAJOR, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, NO.18, 15TH CROSS, J.C.NAGAR, M.L. PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 086. 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.112, 1ST FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR CANARA BANK, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.11.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4421/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, 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 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. None appears for respondent No.1. 3. This petition is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by learned XX Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.4421/2012 dated 30.08.2013. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.10.2011 at 5.30 AM when the petitioner was going on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-51-X-2644 on Hosur Road, the driver of the car - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 bearing No.KA-01-MB-240 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle resulting in the accident. The petitioner fell down and sustained fracture of right tibia at lower 1/3rd. He was immediately shifted to Sparsha Hospital where he was admitted on 22.10.2011 and underwent surgeries with nailing. Petitioner claim that he was earning Rs.75,000/- per month and was aged about 36 years at the time of accident working as an Engineer at Canvara Digital Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and as such prayed for compensation to be awarded to him from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 5. The Insurance Company opposed the petition contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. It is also contended that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy and during the enquiry before the Tribunal, but it could not establish the said aspect in view of the police papers which were produced and they show the indictment by the investigating officer against the driver of the car and ultimately a charge sheet was filed against him. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 6. The tribunal framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and exhibit P-1 to P-13 were marked in evidence. The doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW-2 and the official of the respondent No.02 as examined as RW-1 and Exs.R-1 to R-6 were marked in evidence. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the tribunal came to the conclusion that though a false implication of the vehicle was contended by the insurance company, it could not be proved and held that though there is a delay of 5 days in filing the complaint, the involvement of the car had been established by the petitioner and proceeded to award the compensation of Rs.1,64,375/- under the following heads: Sl.No. Nature of the heads Compensation (Rs.) 1 Pain and sufferings 20,000 2 Attendant Charges 625 3 Loss of Income during laid up period 750 4 Food, diet and nutrition 1,000 5 For conveyance and incidental charges 500 6 Medical Expenses 35,500 7 Loss of future income due to disability 81,000 8 Loss of discomfort and amenities of life 10,000 9 Future Medical Expenses 15,000 Total 1,64,375 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 7. On appeal being admitted, the Tribunal records have been secured and perused the same. 8. The fact that there was an accident involving the car bearing No.KA-01-MB-240 and that there was injury to the petitioner, is not in dispute. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal failed to assess the notional income of the petitioner appropriately, for, he was working in Canvara Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and therefore a notional income of Rs.4,500/- considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and under the remaining heads is also inadequate and there is a need for enhancement of the compensation. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Sri. A.M.Venkatesh submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and adequate and there is no need for reassessment of the same. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 10. The fact that there was an accident involving the car owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 is not in dispute since the insurance company has already satisfied the award passed by the Tribunal. The only question that needs to be considered is about the quantum of the compensation. 11. The medical records produced by the petitioner and exhibit P5, P9 and P10 show that he had suffered fracture of right tibia on the lower 1/3rd and he was admitted to Sparsha Hospital for treatment. He was inpatient for a period of five days and the injuries were treated by nailing. It is relevant to note that the PW-2 who assess the disability states that there is a functional disability of 33% to the right lower limb. The tribunal has taken the functional disability of the petitioner at 10% and has awarded the compensation. The assessment of the disability of 10% by the Tribunal appears to be proper and correct and there is no need for reconsideration of the same. 12. So far as the notional income of the petitioner is concerned, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has not produced any material to show his income and the guidelines - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of settlement of the disputes before the Lok-Adalat prescribes a notional income of Rs.6,500/- per month for the year 2011. In umpteen number of Judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority are in general conformity with the wages fixed under Minimum Wages Act and therefore, they can be adopted by the Courts. In that view of the matter, the notional income needs to be considered at Rs.6,500/- instead of Rs.4,500/- fixed by the Tribunal. 13. The petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of the accident and therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 15 and as such, the compensation under the head of future loss of income due to disability is calculated as Rs.6,500 x 12 x 10% x 15=Rs.1,17,000/-. 14. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner it can safely be said that he was unable to resume his regular duties for a period of three months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.19,500/- under the head of future loss of income. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.625/- under the head of attendant charges, a sum of Rs.1,500/- under the head of food, diet, nutrition and conveyance etc.,. Considering the fact that the petitioner was impatient for a period of 5 days at Sparsha Hospital, a total sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under these heads. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- at the head of pain and sufferings, the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the loss of amenities in life and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- . The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of future medical expenses and the medical expenses do not need any enhancement. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a total sum of Rs.2,62,000/- under the following heads. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 Sl.No. Nature of the heads Compensation (Rs.) 1 Pain and sufferings 40,000 2 Attendant Charges, Conveyance, Food, Nourishing etc., 10000 3 Loss of Income during laid up period 19,500 4 Medical Expenses 35,500 5 Loss of future income due to disability 1,17,000 6 Loss of discomfort and amenities of life 25,000 7 Future Medical Expenses 15,000 Total: Less: Awarded by Tribunal Enhancement 2,62,000 1,64,375 97,625 17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following; ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.97,625/-in the addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its deposit before the Tribunal (excluding interest from the date of filing of the appeal till 04.11.2024). iii. The respondent No.2 - Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20579 MFA No. 10333 of 2013 a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. iv. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal remain unaltered. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT: BHK