- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8557 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI K. VINAYAGAM S/O KRISHNAN G., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.706, 1ST BLOCK, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJ PRABHU S., ADV.) AND: 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DOX, HERO MOTOCORP, VERTICAL, 101-106 BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-111001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.65, ESHWARI COMPLEX, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560021 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 3. SRI PADMANABHA S/O A. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.32, 13TH MAIN ROAD, J C NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560086. 4. SMT. VASUDHA MURALI R/AT NO.643, 46TH 'A' CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. N. KRISHNASWAMY., ADV. FOR R1, SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 21.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4556/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-16) BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 21st September 2016 passed in MVC No.4556 of 2013 by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) (for short hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts in nutshell are that, on 02nd December 2012, the petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-02/HQ-6056 ridden by the third respondent from Rajajinagar to City Railway Station side. At that time, the respondent No.3, as well as driver of offending vehicle, drove the respective vehicles in a high speed, rash and negligently, and in that manner, while overtaking a BMTC bus from the left side, caused the accident. 3. Immediately after accident, the injured was shifted to Suguna Hospital and subsequently to MIOT International Hospital at Chennai for further treatment. For the injuries suffered in the accident, the injured filed claim petition seeking compensation. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 awarded compensation of Rs.1,28,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Sri Raj Prabhu S, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has not considered the entire facts and circumstances while passing the impugned judgment and award. He submits that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of future earning due to permanent disability. The claimant is a painting contractor and he suffered fracture of tibia and fibula. The Tribunal has not considered the discharge summary, discharge certificate, medical bills and other documents produced by the claimant. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of future earning only on the ground that the claimant has not examined the Doctor who treated him and there is no disability certificate. His further submission is that the petitioner has produced documents Exhibits P1 to P19, which reveal that the claimant has sustained Grade III B compound fracture both - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 bone right leg distal one third. On the basis of these documents, he would submit, the petitioner is entitled for loss of future earning due to permanent disability. His next submission is that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is very meagre. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P11 Cash Bill Book and Exhibit P12 conveyance bills and the same are not considered by the Tribunal. On all these grounds, the learned Counsel sought to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 5. On the other hand, Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance company, would submit that the Tribunal has considered the documents placed before it in accordance with law and has awarded the just compensation, which does not call for interference in this appeal. 6. We have examined the materials placed before us. The wound certificate of MIOT International Hospital, Chennai marked as Exhibit P7, discharge summary Exhibit P9 reveal that the injured has suffered Grade III B compound fracture both bone right leg distal one third and the injured underwent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 IM nailing of right tibia. The discharge summary of Suguna Hospital Exhibit P1, reveals that the injured was an inpatient in the said hospital between 2nd to 06th December, 2012 and underwent closed interlocking nail right tibia under SA. The discharge summary of MIOT International Hospital reveals that the injured took treatment in the said Hospital from 15th to 21st December. On 17th December 2012, he underwent fibula plating and Tibia bone grafting right side. Further on 19th December 2012, he underwent wound debridement and faciocutaneous flap cover with below knee slab application. The discharge summaries further reveals that the injured was an inpatient in the above hospitals and produced the medical bills issued by the respective hospitals. 7. The petitioner has also produced medical bills Exhibits P8 and P14. It has come in evidence that the same was got reimbursed through Infosys Company as his wife was working in the said company. On perusal of the materials placed before us, though there is no disability certificate and the evidence of treated Doctor, considering the age and occupation, as well as the medical evidence by the doctor, we - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 are of the considered view that it is just proper to assess the disability of the whole body of the injured at 10%. As regards income of the injured is concerned, the petitioner has produced Cash Bill Book and conveyance bills and PW1 has stated that he is a Painting Contractor aged 33 years. She has deposed that he was earning Rs.10.00 lakh per annum. But no documentary proof is produced to substantiate the earning at Rs.10.00 lakh per annum. However, the injured has produced Exhibit P1-Cash Bill book, which is pertaining to Mrs. Vinayaka painters (Painting contractor) for different dates from 4th February to 7th November 2012. Considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioner, it is just and proper to assess the income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the petitioner was aged 33 years, the applicable multiplier would be 16. Hence, the loss of future earning due to permanent disability would be Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 16 x 10%). Considering the injuries, discharge summary as also the pain and agony undergone by the petitioner, it is just proper to award compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards loss of future amenities. Considering - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 the nature of discomfort of the appellant/claimant, we are of the considered view that the same is required to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities. Taking the income of the petitioner at ₹10,000/- per month, Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid-up period. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for the revised compensation as under: Sl.No. Head Amount (Rs.) 1. Towards pain and suffering 60,000.00 2. Towards loss of future earning due to permanent disability 1,92,000.00 3. Towards future amenities 30,000.00 4. Towards loss of income during laid-up period 40,000.00 5. Towards food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges 45,000.00 Total 3,67,000.00 8. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R 1. Appeal is allowed in part; 2. The Judgment and award dated 21st September 2016, passed in MVC No.4556 of 2013 by the Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24781-DB MFA No. 8557 of 2016 Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, is modified, holding that the appellant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- as against Rs.1,28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit; 3. The respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment; 4. The apportionment and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be as per the award of the Tribunal; 5. Registry to draw award accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64