- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4853 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI SHAIK NOORULLA, S/O LATE SHAIK KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT DAVANGAPET, NEAR VENKATESHWARA TALUK, KOLAR CITY. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S LANCO INFRATECH LIMITED, NO.14, CHELUVANA HALLI VILLAGE, ARABIKOTHANUR POST, KOLAR TQ & DISTRICT-563 101. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BHARATHI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED, PRIDE QUADRA, NO.30, II FLOOR, HEBBAL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 024. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2, V/O DATED 23.05.2023 NOTICE TO R1 D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.465/14 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the arguments of both sides. 2. The learned MACT and I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, by an order dated 05.03.2016 passed common judgment and award in MVC Nos.465 of 2014 and 466 of 2014. 3. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Tribunal in MVC No.465 of 2014 by the petitioner-injured claimant for enhancement of the compensation. The petitioner filed claim application claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- . But, the Tribunal granted Rs.3,15,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred, in which, it is contended that petitioner sustained 15 injuries, both simple and grievous. Meagre amount was granted for pain - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 and suffering. As per Exhibits P.30 to P.204-medical bills, medical expenses comes to Rs.1,13,243/-. The Tribunal erred in assessing the permanent disability as 20%, though the doctor stated the disability as 33%. The petitioner was working as a bar bender. No amounts are granted for loss of amenities and future medical expenses. The rate of interest is to be enhanced from 6% per annum to 9% per annum and thus, requested for enhancement of compensation. 5. As per the evidence of P.W.2 and Exhibit P27- discharge summary, the petitioner sustained the following injuries. <Multiple injuries over left dorsum of foot and anterior aspect of leg, cut lacerated wound on left first web space of right foot, cut lacerated would 1 X 8 cms., on right parietal region, blunt injury on the left side of chest, injury on the anterior aspect of left knee, closed comminuted supra condylar fracture of left femur, multiple ribs fracture i.e., 3rd and 7th ribs on right side and 4th and 8th ribs on the left side, fracture of right clavicle, fracture of right scapula, left lung injury, blunt injury to abdomen.= - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 6. Petitioner was aged 57 years, working as a bar bender in the construction field and earning Rs.400/- to 500/- per day. As he has not produced any documents to prove his income and since the accident occurred in the year 2011, the notional income is to be taken as Rs.6,500/- per month as per the guidelines issued to Karnataka State Legal Service authority. It was stated that he requires minimum 4 months rest. 7. P.W.3 assessed the disability and also stated that the petitioner had irregular thickening of right clavicle, irregularity of the right scapula, irregular thickening of right 3rd to 6th ribs on the left side, irregular thickening of left femur, shortening of right leg to an extent of 1.5 cms., deformity at knee joint and malunion of left right clavicle and right scapula. He has assessed left lower limb disability at 45%, right upper limb disability at 20% and the disability for chest deformity at 10% and whole body disability at 33%. The Tribunal has clearly observed that P.W.3 is not cross examined by the respondent and however, reduced the disability to 20%. The said reduction of disability to 20% is without any basis and is to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 8. The doctor, who examined the petitioner, has rightly held the whole body disability as 33% and this Court finds it reasonable to rely upon the said disability. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the citation reported in 2022(3) AKR 266 in the case of New India Insurance Company Vs. Abdul Mehaboob Tahasildar and others in which it was held that even if it is a case of injury without amputation, the whole body disability to an extent of 20% ultimately has a bearing on reduced earning capacity. The learned counsel also relied upon another citation reported in AIR 2023 SC 186 in the case of Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, in which it was held that 70% disability is suffered by claimant as there was amputation of 5 loyal limbs and hence, the functional disability was calculated as 60% instead of 35%. 9. In this case, the doctor has rightly assessed the disability as 33% and it can be treated as functional disability also. The loss of income due to the disability comes to Rs.2,31,660/- (6,500 x 12 x 9 x 33%). The amount granted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 for medical expenses at Rs.1,03,000/-, needs no interference. It is stated that he was hospitalized for four months and sustained multiple fractures. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to grant Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. He might not have attended work for 6 months, therefore this Court finds it reasonable to grant Rs.39,000/- under the head loss of income during laid up period for 6 months (6,500 x6). The Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- for incidental charges and Rs.2,000/- for conveyance. So, this Court finds it reasonable to modify the amount to Rs.40,000/- under the head transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that as per the evidence of P.W.3, petitioner requires Rs.30,000/- for removal of the implants. Learned counsel for respondent objected the same on the ground that from the year 2011 onwards, the petitioner did not underwent any surgery for removal of the implants and no document is filed. Therefore, the said amount cannot be granted. As such, future future medical expenses cannot be granted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 11. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,63,960/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 03.12.2011 till the date of deposit as against the amount of Rs.3,15,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of income due to disability 2,31,660/- 2. Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 3. Loss of amenities 50,000/- 4. Medical expenses 1,03,000/- 5.Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 40,000/- 6. Loss of earning during the laid up period 39,000/- Total 5,63,660/- 13. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36399 MFA No. 4853 of 2016 (ii) The claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.5,63,660/- with interest at 6% per annum from 03.12.2011 till the date of deposit. (iii) Respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest from 03.12.2011, within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with interest accrued thereon. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62.1