- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 10211 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI SHIVAKUMAR, S/O SRI NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT MAGALUR VILLAGE & POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. NEW GENERAL TRADING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NO.13/4, SYED SALLY LANE, CALCUTTA - 700 007, BY ITS MANAGER. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LTD, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.06.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5908/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 27.04.2012, passed by the Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru City, (SCCH-12) (for short “the Tribunal”), in MVC No. 5908/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 07.03.2010, at around 8:45pm, the claimant was standing near K.R.Puram fly over, Old Madras road, at that time, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.WB-23-A-6845 by its driver. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. He has also suffered disability. He was doing agriculture and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 earning Rs.6,000/- per month. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Respondent No.2-Insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement. It denied the contentions of the claimant. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. This case is clubbed with another claim petition in MVC No.5907/2010, common evidence was recorded in both cases. The claimants in both the cases to prove their cases, examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. Respondent No.2 has not led oral or documentary evidence. 6. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal assessed the age of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 the claimant as 30 years, his monthly income at Rs.4,000/-, disability at 6% to the whole body, applied the multiplier '17' and awarded the following compensation:- Particulars Amount in (`) `) `) `) Pain and suffering 20,000-00 Loss of income during treatment period 12,000-00 Medical expenses Nil Loss of future income 48,960-00 Loss of amenities 10,000-00 Conveyance, nourishment and diet etc. 5,000-00 TOTAL 95,960-00 7. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer. 9. Learned counsel for claimant contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant on the lower side and the amounts of compensation awarded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 on all the other heads are inadequate. Hence, prayed to enhance the same. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the claimant and has awarded a just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Following point emerges for determination: i) Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 12. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment at paragraph 28 mentioned the details about the injury sustained and also the treatment taken by the claimant. Out of three injuries, one is a fracture of right femur. The Doctor - PW.4 in his evidence assessed the disability to the right lower limb at 31.9% and to the whole body at 16%. The said calculation is incorrect. Normally, 1/3rd of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 right lower limb when converted to the whole body is considered as 10%. Therefore, the disability at 16% to the whole body is on the higher side. On considering the age, occupation and nature of work, the disability can be taken as 10% to the whole body. 13. On re-appreciating the materials placed on record, it is felt that the income of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. If we follow the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the claimant can be taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. 14. On re-appreciation of the evidence available on record, the amount of compensation awarded under other heads are also inadequate, which requires enhancement. For the aforementioned reasons, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 Particulars Amount in (`) `) `) `) Pain and suffering 30,000-00 Loss of income during treatment period (Rs.5,500/- x 3) 16,500-00 Loss of future income due to permanent disability (Rs.5,500/- x 12 x 17 x 10%) 1,12,200-00 Loss of amenities 25,000-00 Conveyance, nourishment and diet etc. 15,000-00 TOTAL 1,98,700-00 Amount awarded by the Tribunal- Enhancement- Rounded off- 95,960-00 1,02,740-00 1,03,000-00 15. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the same. The claimant is also entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation. For the aforesaid discussions, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. 16. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed-in-part; ii. The judgment and award dated 27.04.2012 passed in MVC No.5908/2010 by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25918 MFA No. 10211 of 2012 the Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru City, (SCCH-12), stands modified; iii. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization; iv. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company 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. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal; Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK