- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38338 MFA No. 7541 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7541 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SRI JAMEEL PASHA S/O LATE H.SHAFI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. R/AT NO.3424, BAGATH SINGH ROAD, NEW A.D.COLONY, MUTHYAL PET, MULBAGAL TOWN AND TALUK. KOLAR DISTRICT. PIN CODE …APPELLANT (BY SMT.ANUSHA FOR SMT.SUGUNAMMA AND SMT.SUGUNA R REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ASHOK KUMARA S/O LATE VENKATAMUNIYAYAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT HOROHALLI GARDENS, TO THE SOUTH OF KOLAR BY PASS, KOLAR CITY AND DISTRICT PINCODE 563101. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38338 MFA No. 7541 of 2024 2. THE LEGAL OFFICER, ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL, INSURANCE CO.LTD, MANIPAL TOWERS, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGLORE, PINCODE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 23.9.2025.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1076/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38338 MFA No. 7541 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms.Anusha who represents Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellant, as well as Sri.H.S. Lingaraj who represents Sri. Ravi.S.Samprathi, learned counsel on record for respondent No. 2. At request of both counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. Being dissatisfied with the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, through orders in MVC No.1076 of 2020 dated 08.02.2024, the claimant therein has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in compensation. 3. On the ground that he sustained grievous injury in a road traffic accident and became permanently disabled, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned award granted a sum of Rs.3,26,300/- as compensation. 4. Learned counsel who represents the appellant states that the appellant sustained one grievous injury and multiple simple injuries in the road traffic accident. He took - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38338 MFA No. 7541 of 2024 extensive treatment and spent considerable amount. But he is left with disability. The appellant by working as welder was earning huge sum by the date of accident. But without considering the occupation of the appellant, the Tribunal granted meagre sum as compensation and therefore the appellant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel who represents respondent No.2 on the other hand states that without there being any evidence with regard to the occupation and earnings of the appellant by the date of accident, the Tribunal took Rs.15,500/- per month as the notional income, which is exorbitant. Learned counsel states that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is justifiable and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. 6. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, extra diet and conveyance, Rs.43,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.31,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and Rs.1,82,300/- towards loss of future income. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38338 MFA No. 7541 of 2024 The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,26,300/- in toto as compensation. 7. Undisputedly, the appellant sustained comminuted fracture of the shaft of femur, which is grievous in nature. Apart from the said injury, the appellant also sustained injuries over the left parietal region, right parietal region, to the right knee, to the left dorsum of foot, to the left knee joint and on the forehead. 8. As per the evidence produced, the appellant took treatment as an inpatient for twenty five days. Thus, considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment taken, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest at least four months. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.31,000/- only towards loss of income during laid up period. 9. Though, learned counsel for the appellant states that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is improper, having considered the discussion that went on in the impugned order in respect of the injuries sustained and the evidence of PW2, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38338 MFA No. 7541 of 2024 this Court is of the view that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal needs no interference. 10. Having considered the amount that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal and the discussion that went on, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.40,000/- in toto can be granted as compensation in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal, so that the total compensation which the appellant will receive becomes justifiable. 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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in MVC No.1076/2020 dated 08.02.2024 is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-. iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit except for the period of delay of 180 days as per orders in I.A.No.1/2024. iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38338 MFA No. 7541 of 2024 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15