- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. PHILOMIN RAJ A, S/O LATE ANTHONY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.889, OIL MILL ROAD, SHAMMANNA LAYOUT, ARAVIND NAGAR, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU-64. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION ROAD, K H ROAD, BANGALORE-27. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5609/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX A.C.M.M., AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-24), 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: Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.10.2018 passed by the XXII Addl.Small Causes Judge and XX A.C.M.M., & Member MACT, Bengaluru in MVC.No.5609/2017 for enhancement of compensation. 2. The case is listed for admission and with the consent of learned advocate appearing for both the sides it is taken up for final disposal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 22.08.2017, at about 09.00 p.m., the claimant met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a bus bearing registration number KA-53-F-022 at Lingarajapuram bus stop. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and his left hand below the elbow joint was amputated. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 4. It is further case of the claimant that due to the said injury, he has suffered permanent disability of 100%. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. 5. Respondent-Corporation denied the petition averments and denied that it was caused due to negligence of driver of the bus and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The plaintiff to prove his case, has examined two witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 and produced documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P -16. The respondent has examined one witness RW-1, and has not led any documentary evidence. 8. The Tribunal recorded the evidence and after hearing the argument, held that accident occurred due - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 to contributory negligence of claimant as well as driver of the bus and determined the contribution in the ratio of 15:85. The Tribunal assessed age of claimant as 58 years. His income as Rs.7,000/- per month, applied multiplier '9', disability as 25% to the whole body and awarded following amount of compensation. Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 50,000 Food & Nourishment, conveyance & attendant charges 30,000 Medical expenses 62,577 Loss of income during the period of treatment 28,000 Loss of future earnings 1,89,000 Total 3,59,577 9. Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded, as well as holding that accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the claimant, he preferred this appeal. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both sides. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 11. It is the contention of the claimant that at the time of accident he was carefully crossing the road. The driver of the bus negligently drove the vehicle and dashed against him though there was sufficient space available on the side of the road to enable the vehicle to pass through without any obstruction. The only contention of the respondent is that there was no zebra crossing at the place where in the claimant was crossing the road. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent and apportioned the negligence of the claimant as 15%. The said finding is erroneous. The accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus. Therefore, respondent is liable to pay entire amount of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that looking at the materials available on record i.e. charge sheet and enclosures, entire negligence was of the claimant. In paragraphs 16 to 18 of the impugned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 judgment, the Tribunal observed that claimants contribution to cause the accident was 60%. However, in paragraph No.18, it has recorded only 15% contributory negligence was of claimant and remaining 85% negligence was of the driver of the bus. As the respondent has not filed any appeal against the judgment, it cannot now challenge the said finding, in this appeal. 13. Charge sheet and enclosures which is referred by the trial Court reveals that when the claimant was trying to cross the road, accident occurred. It appears that it was a one way road and there was maiden in between both the roads. The width of the road at the spot of accident was 30 feet, which is noted in Exs-P3 and Ex.P4. It appears that claimant crossed about 5 feet from Eastern edge of the road and remaining width of road was 25 feet, the same was available to the driver of the bus to pass through without obstruction. In the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 cross-examination of PW1, it was brought out that there was no zebra crossing at the spot of accident and it was also suggested that without looking at the arrival of the bus, he tried to cross the road and hence the accident occurred due to his negligence. The incident has occurred in the night. It is not the evidence of PW-1 that before crossing the road, he observed the movement of the vehicle and tried to cross the road. In a busy road, while crossing the road, he ought to have taken care of himself. It is also not his case that all of a sudden, the bus came and hit him. Considering the contentions of the claimant, the Tribunal held claimant had contributed for causing accident and his negligence was to an extent of 15%. 14. The road was straight at the spot of accident, Had the claimant taken care of himself, he could have avoided the accident. The said contention of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 respondent cannot be ruled out. Therefore, finding of Tribunal in this regard do not call for interference. 15. According to evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 claimant lost his left hand below elbow joint. He sustained a crush injury to the left hand and it was amputated. According to evidence of PW2, length of the stump of the left hand after amputation is 15 cms. PW-2 assessed the disability of the claimant as 65% to whole body. In his cross-examination, various diseases allegedly suffered by the claimant were suggested to PW-2, which he denied. It was also suggested that the disability of a particular limb, when compared to the whole-body disability, it shall be one-third. Based on this cross- examination of PW-2, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Further he contends that one third of 65% would be 12% and not 25% as assessed by the Tribunal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 16. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claimant was working as a Foreman and that the amputation of his left hand below the elbow amounts to 100% disability for the purpose of his occupation. He further submits that, while a person with a lower-limb amputation may still work with the aid of an artificial limb, but a person employed as a Foreman cannot effectively perform his duties with an upper-limb amputation. It leads to 100% permanent functional disability. PW-2 has deposed only regarding the general disability relating to a particular limb. But in case of amputation of particular limb, the theory of comparison to the whole body is not applicable. It is further argued that even under the Employee Compensation Act, as per Schedule I, such disability is to be considered as 70%. However, the Tribunal has taken it as 25%. The said finding is erroneous. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to just compensation. He further says that the amount of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced. 17. The learned counsel for appellant contends that as per Ex-P11, income of the claimant was Rs.15,000/- per month but he has not proved the same. Hence, Tribunal assessed notional income as Rs.7,000/- p.m., comparing to the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, it is on the lower side. Hence, prayed to consider the income as Rs.11,000/- per month. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation on all the heads except medical expenses. Therefore, prayed to enhance the same. 18. Upon considering the materials available on record, it is evident that, as a consequence of the injuries sustained, the claimant’s left hand below the elbow was amputated. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that length of left hand after amputation is 15 cms. Mere fact that the claimant was suffering from diabetes or any other ailment - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 is not sufficient to conclude that the disability was caused by those diseases. Claimant had suffered injuries in vehicle accident, the same is not in dispute. The medical records produced by the claimant support his contention that his permanent disability was a result of the injuries suffered in the incident. Therefore, contention of the respondent in this regard is not accepted. 19. The claimant contends that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He produced Ex.P-11-salary certificate but he has not proved it by examining the author of the said document. Therefore, following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income of the claimant is taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. 20. PW1 was working as a Foremen as per his case. PW-2 has assessed his disability at 65%. As per Schedule II, Part II of the Employees' Compensation Act, the disability in such a case can be assessed at 70%. The - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 statement made by PW-2 in cross-examination, without specific reference to the nature of the injury, cannot be taken into account to calculate the disability as one-third comparing to whole-body. Considering the evidence of PW-2, as well as the provisions under the Employees' Compensation Act, and taking into account the age of the claimant, his permanent disability is assessed at 65% to the whole body. 21. Since the disability is taken above 65%. future prospects shall be added to his income. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi, between the age group of 50 to 60 years, future prospects of 10% has to be added. Undisputedly multiplier applicable in this case is '9', since the age of claimant was 58 years. On the basis of said figures, compensation under the head loss of Future earning capacity due to permanent disability is reassessed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 22. On re-appreciation of the materials available on the record, the amount of compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering, Special diet, conveyance charges as well as 'loss of income during laid up period' are on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced. 23. No amount of compensation is awarded towards 'loss of amenities', which requires to be awarded. PW-1 and PW-2 have not given any evidence regarding the artificial limb. Therefore, it cannot be considered in the present case, due to lack of evidence. 24. From the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is entitled to following amount of compensation:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 75,000 Special diet, conveyance charges & attendant charges 50,000 Medical expenses 62,577 Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.11,000x6) 66,000 Loss of future earning capacity due to disability(Rs.11,000+10%x12x9x65%) 8,49,420 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 1,00,000 Total 12,02,997 85% contributory negligence 10,22,547 Amount awarded by the Tribunal 3,05,660 Enhancement 7,16,887 Rounded off 7,17,000 25. Claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realisation. The respondent is liable to pay the same. 26. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 22.10.2018, passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX ACMM & MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.5609/2017 stands modified; iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,17,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49013 MFA No. 320 of 2020 iv) The respondent No.1 shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. vi) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22