- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6700 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. AMITH N SHAH S/O NAVEEN D SHAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.282, 2ND H CROSS, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BANGALORE - 79. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, SRV COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 068. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. BINDU U K D/O UNNIKRISHNAN M.K NO.2K, NO.4, 4TH STREET, NARAYANA PILLAI STREET, BANGALORE - 01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA PHANEENDRA T.B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2017, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.4.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1035/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 21ST ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments on both the sides. 2. This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.04.2015 passed in MVC 1035/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal') seeking modification and enhancement of the compensation. 3. The injured claimant, aged 30 years and working as a Chartered Accountant, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest. Tribunal - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted Rs.3,04,565/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till date of depositing the amount. 4. In brief facts of the petitioner are as under: On 02.11.2012 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner was riding his Activa Honda bearing KA-02-ET-8904 on khoday circle, Cottonpet, Bangalore, at that time the driver of the Honda deo Motor cycle bearing KA-03-HD-2571 came in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and dashed against the petitioner. Thereby petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, Bangalore, Therefore the petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, nourishment and conveyance and attendant charges. The Chickpet traffic police, filed a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their PS crime No.42/2012 punishable u/s.279, 337 of IPC. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred in which it is contended that the appellant has suffered 19% disability to the whole body, which has definitely reduced his earning capacity. The doctor has stated that a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 Rs.2,85,000/- is required towards future medical expenses for removal of implants and total replacement of the knee joint. However, under the head ‘loss of amenities’, no adequate amount has been awarded, though the Trial Court has granted only Rs.25,000/- under this head. Therefore. the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a Chartered Accountant, earning Rs.20,00,000/- p.a., and had also filed Income Tax returns (Exs.P17 to P20 for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14). As per the Bank Statement (Ex.P23), his monthly salary was Rs.82,060/-. 7. The Tribunal observed that there is no future loss of income, as his income was on upper side even after the accident, and therefore no amount was granted under the head ‘loss of future income’. The appellant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW2, who assessed the disability at 19% to the whole body. 8. PW.2 stated that the petitioner has sustained following injuries, shattered fracture-right proximal tibial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 condyle and right fibula with severe swelling blebs and blisters (Type VI). There was external fixator right knee spanning with screw fixation was done and discharged on 7.11.2012. Again he examined the petitioner on 12.12.2014 for the assessment of disability. The petitioner complained he cannot fully bend his right knee or completely straighten it. He has difficulty in climbing stairs and slopes, unable to kneel, sit cross-legged or use Indian toilet etc. and opined 19% whole body disability. 9. The learned counsel of the appellant relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande and Another, passed in Civil Appeal No.1329/2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.22790/2013, dated 02.02.2017, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 351, wherein it was observed with regard to permanent disability as under: "The appellant is a Chartered Accountant, he is supposed to do sitting work and, therefore, his working capacity is not impaired. Such a conclusion was justified if the appellant was in the employment where job requirement could be to do sitting/table work and receive monthly salary for the said work. An important feature and aspect which is ignored by the MACT is that the appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant. To do this work efficiently - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 and in order to augment his income, a Chartered Accountant is supposed to move around as well. If a Chartered Accountant is doing taxation work, he has to appear before the assessing authorities and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, as a Chartered Accountant is allowed to practice up to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Many times Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well. There are many statutory functions under various statutes which the Chartered Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for performance of such functions. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 341." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 10. Considering the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,04,565/- towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of income during laid up period, medical expenses and attendant charges is deemed sufficient and therefore no interference is called for. 11. This Court finds that it is just and reasonable to take 1/3rd of the disability, which comes to 6%. The appellant’s monthly income is assessed at Rs.82,000/-, and the appellant being 30 years of age, the appropriate multiplier is 17. Accordingly, the 'loss of future income' is to be calculated as Rs.82,060 × 12 × 17 × 6%. The total compensation under this head which comes to Rs.10,04,414/-. 12. The appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.13,08,979/- as against Rs.3,04,565/- awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed-in-part. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36880 MFA No. 6700 of 2015 2. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and re-assessed as indicated above. 3. The respondent No.1/Insurance Company herein is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.13,08,979/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the enhanced amount within a period of one month from the date of this order. 4. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the accrued interest. Draw the award accordingly. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK