- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6881 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. MR VASANTHA PURUSHA S/O ALTHAPPA PURUSHA R/AT KEPU HOUSE & VILLAGE NEERKAJE POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, PIN 574243 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR ARUNACHALAM N S/O NALLAYA GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/127, SALAYANKADU UTHANDIPALAYAM POST, TIRUCHENGODE TALUK, NAMAKKALA DISTRICT SEETHARAMAPALYAM TAMILNADU, PIN 637209. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD MADURAI ( T N) D.O.IVTH FLOOR, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 FORTUNE BUILDING ABOVE MALBAR GOLD, FALNEER MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT PIN 575001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED:02.07.2021, NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.446/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MANGALURU, D.K., 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 MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and Sri. C. R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company. 2. The appellant - Claimant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.02.2018 in M.V.C. No.446/2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., (for short, The Tribunal), for enhancement of Compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.03.2016 at about 6:45 P.M., when the claimant, was proceeding in the KSRTC Bus Bearing Registration No.KA-19-F-2967 as a driver of the said bus, from Bellary towards Mangalore, when - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 the bus reached near Byrapura Cross, Byrapura Village, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District on NH-150(A), a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-34-W-1545 driven by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the KSRTC Bus, due to which, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act and claimed compensation on various heads. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.446/2017 dated 20.02.2018 is inadequate. The claimant was working as KSRTC bus driver and earning salary of Rs.46,000/-p.m. Due to accident he was unable to work. The claimant though suffered permanent physical disability at 80%, however, the Tribunal has considered the disability at 40% which is on lower side. It is his contention that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities' and hence, he prays to allow this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company, vehemently contended that the injured - Claimant is a Government servant and he continued in service but the Tribunal has granted compensation under the head 'Loss of future income', which is not permissible under law. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability at 40%. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have perused the material available on record. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: I. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?” 8. To substantiate the claim, the appellant - claimant, he himself got examined as P.W-1, P.W-2 Dr.Mahabala Shetty and P.W-3-Smt. Sumalatha and relied - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 upon the documents and got marked as per at Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and on behalf of Respondent Ex.R1 was marked. 9. The claimant in the claim petition has stated that in the accident he has suffered fracture of his left leg and the oral evidence stands corroborative and consistent to the contents of the wound certificate at Ex.P3. As per Ex.P3- Wound certificate, the claimant has sustained 5 grievous injuries to the left leg. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is supported by P.W.2 - Dr. MahabalaShetty, who examined the claimant and he has assessed the disability at 80% but the Tribunal has considered the disability at 40% to the whole body. 10. As per Schedule-I of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'), for loss of amputation, disability has to be assessed at 50%. Hence, we have assessed the total disability at 50% which is fair and reasonable as against 40% assessed by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- under the head 'Pain and Sufferings'; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 Rs.1,000/- towards 'Medical Expenses'; Rs.32,000/- towards 'attendant charges, food and extra nourishment, conveyance charges', Rs.50,000/- towards 'Loss of Income during treatment period'; Rs.7,92,000/- towards 'Loss of future income due to disability' and Rs.14,000/- towards 'Future Medical Expenses' which does not call for interference. 12. The Tribunal has not granted compensation under the head 'Loss of Amenities' to the claimant. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we are of the view to grant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 'Loss of Amenities' globally. 13. The claimant was aged about 53 years at the time of accident. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is '11'. Hence, 'Loss of future income due to disability' is reckoned as: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 15,000 x 11 x 12 x 50% works out to Rs.9,90,000/- 14. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation: HEADS Rs. Pain and sufferings 1,15,000.00 Loss of income during laid-up period 50,000.00 Attendant charges 32,000.00 Medical expenses 1,000.00 Future medical expenses 14,000.00 Loss of amenities 1,00,000.00 Loss of income due to disability 9,90,000.00 TOTAL 13,02,000.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 10,04,000.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 2,98,000.00 15. In the result, we pass the following O R D E R i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,02,000/- as against Rs.10,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,98,000/- from - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32672-DB MFA No. 6881 of 2018 the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation. iii. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest within six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv. Draw modified award accordingly. v. No order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33