- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. AMEER JAAN @ AMEER @ AMEERA JAN S/O LATE BASHA SABI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.31, MUTHKUR VILALGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAIK KRISHNA VENKATRAMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. Y. CHETAN S/O LATE YOGANANDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS NO.51, EWS COMPOUND MARENAHALLI HOUSE LR NAGAR, VIVEKANAGARA KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 2. THE LEGAL MANAGER M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.28, 5TH FLOOR CENETARY BUILDNG M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 -[VC]; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.4323/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-7), 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 RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 29.08.2019 passed in M.V.C.4323/2017 by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, and Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru. By filing this appeal, the appellant seeks to enhance the compensation so awarded by the tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 The factual matrix: 2. It was the case of the petitioner before the tribunal that, on 15.12.2016 at about 8.30 a.m., when he was moving on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 53-S-7646 from Muthkur towards Varthur, near Muthusandra Lake, the driver of TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-53-A-7981 by driving his Car in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle. Because of this impact, petitioner fell down and sustained subtrochanteric fracture right femur, distal 1/3 shaft fracture right femur, open wound over right leg and COPD with acute exacerbation. He was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru and took treatment in the said hospital as inpatient from 15.12.2016 to 24.12.2016 and underwent closed reduction and recon nailing right femur, wound debridement and CLW suturing right leg on 16.12.2016. Further, he also underwent inferior based gastronomies flap with SSG right leg on 19.12.2016. Thus, he alleged that, he has spent more than - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and medical expenses. 3. It is his further case that, when the accident took place, he was 60 years old and was working as a mason under various civil contractors and was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. Now he has been disabled because of these injuries and has sustained permanent disability because of these accidental injuries. Both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation and hence prayed to award the compensation as prayed. 4. Before the tribunal, respondent No.1 was placed ex-parte, as he remained absent before the Court, despite service of notice. Respondent No.2 appeared through his panel counsel and opposed the petition by filing detailed objection statement, denying entire assertions and allegations made in the petition. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations with regard to the nature of the accident, profession, injury sustained by him, so called medical expenses spent by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 him, and disability etc., So far as the issuance of the policy and its validity on the date of accident is concerned, it is admitted. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The learned tribunal based upon the rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues. The petitioner himself entered the witness box as PW.1 to substantiate his claim and also examined Dr. Chethan A., as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18, closed his evidence. 6. An official of respondent No.2 by name Thrinethra M.N., entered the witness as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. Closed respondent No.2's evidence. 7. The learned tribunal on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence held that, the said accident has taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-53-A- 7981 owned by respondent No.1 and driven by its driver. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 This finding of the tribunal is not challenged by respondent No.2. Thus, the finding on issue No.1 has attained finality. 8. With regard to the award of compensation, the learned tribunal in para-17 awarded total compensation of Rs.5,20,200/- under the following heads.: Sl.No . Heads Amount Rs. 1. For pain and sufferings, mental agony 60,000.00 2. Actual medical expenses 2,79,000.00 3. For special diet and conveyance. 10,000.00 4. Permanent disability 1,51,200.00 5. Future medical expenses 20,000.00 Total 5,20,200.00 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such award, now the appellant/petitioner is before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and doctor has assessed permanent disability at 20%. Towards treatment, the petitioner has spent substantial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 amount. Because of multiple fractures, he has suffered pain and mental agony. In addition to medical expenses, petitioner has spent money towards special diet, conveyance, and attendance charge. Thus, because of these injuries, he has suffered permanent disability and now he cannot earn as he was earning prior to the accident. It is his submission that, prior to the accident he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., from Mason work under various contractors. He lost his income. He further submits that, though the tribunal has taken his monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, but according to him as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, his income ought have been taken at Rs.9,500/-. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. Therefore, he submits that, in view of all these grounds mentioned in the appeal memo, the appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 11. Per contra, Sri. D. Vijaykumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 justifies the award of compensation by the tribunal. According to his submission, the tribunal is right in awarding compensation based upon the materials placed on record. He submits that, no interference is required with the impugned judgment. Thus, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. So far as award of compensation is concerned, as stated supra, the petitioner has suffered fractures which are multiple in natures and he was in the hospital as inpatient as well as took treatment as outpatient. Towards pain and suffering, mental agony, the tribunal has awarded the compensation at Rs.60,000/-, which in my opinion is just and proper and it require no interference. Therefore, with regard to the award of compensation under the head pain and suffering, mental agony no interference is required. 13. So far as award of compensation towards medical expenses is concerned, the tribunal has awarded - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 Rs.2,79,000/- towards actual medical expenses. On assessment of the evidence placed on record, especially the medical records, receipts and prescriptions, the tribunal has awarded the said compensation. Even on re- assessment of the said records, I do not find any factual error in awarding that much of compensation and it do not require any enhancement. 14. For special diet and conveyance, the tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-. After discharge from the hospital, the petitioner must have attended the hospital to take treatment as outpatient and must have spent sufficient amount towards special diet as well as conveyance and attendant charges. Therefore, instead of Rs.10,000/-, if Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards special diet, conveyance and attendant charges, it would meet the ends of justice, as there is no award of compensation towards attendant charges. 15. While calculating the permanent disability, the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 at Rs.7,000/- p.m. The said accident has taken place in the year 2016. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the year 2016, the notional income at Rs.9,500/- p.m., is to be assessed in the absence of any documentary proof of income. In this case, except the self serving evidence of the petitioner that, he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., there is no concrete evidence to prove the same. Therefore, it is just and proper to take the notional income at Rs.9,500/- p.m. as the monthly income of the petitioner. While calculating the permanent disability, the tribunal has assessed the percentage of disability at 20% to the whole body. When the said accident took place, the petitioner was aged 60 years as per Ex.P12 - the Adhaar card. He has taken treatment both as inpatient and outpatient in Hosmat hospital. Because of the treatment taken by him, the percentage of disability must have been reduced to some extent. Therefore, I do not find any error in assessing the disability at 20% by the tribunal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 Therefore, it is held that, because of this accidental injuries and nature of treatment taken by the petitioner, he must have suffered 20% disability to the whole body. As his income is taken at Rs.9,500/-, 20% of the same i.e 9500 X 20/100 = Rs.1900 is to be taken as permanent disability and it is to be multiplied by 12 to calculate annually. As the petitioner was aged 60 years, as per the judgment in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier that is applicable is '9'. Therefore, the loss of income due to disability is Rs.2,05,200/- (1900 x 12 x 9). 16. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during laid up period. As his income is assessed at Rs.9,500/- p.m., these injuries must have idled the petitioner at least for a period of 3 months. During this period, he must have lost his income. Therefore, loss of income during laid up period is calculated at Rs.9500 X 3 =Rs.28,500/-. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 17. So far as future medical expenses is concerned, the tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. There is no appeal challenging this award towards medical expenses and other heads by respondent No.2. In view of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the award of compensation towards the future medical expenses is just and proper. With this view, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part by holding that the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation as under: Sl.No . Heads Amount Rs. 1. For pain and sufferings, mental agony 60,000.00 2. Actual medical expenses 2,79,000.00 3. For special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. 15,000.00 4. Permanent disability 2,05,200.00 5. Future medical expenses 20,000.00 6. Loss of income during laid up period. 28,500.00 Total 6,07,700.00 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 18. Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.87,500/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the tribunal together with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit. So far as order regarding deposit and release passed by the trial Court is concerned, it remains unaltered. 19. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,07,700/-, thereby enhancement of Rs.87,500/- together interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till deposit. (iii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.4323/2017 dated 29.08.2019 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7) is hereby modified to the above extent. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28847 MFA No. 680 of 2021 (iv) Respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of judgment, together with interest before the tribunal by deducting the compensation already deposited. (v) There shall be modified award accordingly. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10