- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 1677 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: BOMMARAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O MOHAN RAM REP.BY HIS GUARDIAN WIFE DHAPU DEVI R/O BER BHABIYON WALA MALPURIYA, JAITHARAN RAJASTHAN - 303 303. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANDESH SHETTY T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AKBAR ALI S/O K ABDUL SAHEB R/O H.No.18-110 HOODE POST PADUTHONSE VILLAGE KEMMANNU UDUPI TALUK - 576 115. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH, KUNDAPURA 2ND FLOOR, SRI RAM ARCADE Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 OPP. HEAD POST OFFICE UDUPI - 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K POORNABODHA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.688/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.688/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Kundapura, Udupi whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,79,770/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the claimant's case before the Tribunal are as under: The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that took place on 04.02.2015 at about 12.00 p.m., when he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-20-S-230 from Kundapura side towards Udupi and when the motor cycle reached near Saligrama Bus stand, Chitrapady Village, on NH-66, Udupi, at that time, the driver of the Mahindra Pickup vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-20-D-0883 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his head. Immediately, he was shifted to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 treatment, where he lodged complaint, which led to registration of FIR and investigation. Thus, the claimant had filed claim petition before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record as per Exs.P1 to P.14 and considering the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, awarded compensation of Rs.12,79,770/- with interest at rate of 6% p.a. 5. Learned counsel Sri. Sandesh Shetty T., for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal has committed error in taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- though there is sufficient evidence, which clearly discloses that claimant was doing granite fixing work. Further, the Tribunal has considered only 40% of disability which is contrary to the evidence of PW.2 - Doctor, who has assessed the disability of 61% to the whole body. Further, the Tribunal has not granted 40% future prospects to the income of the claimant and the Tribunal has granted meager compensation towards loss of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 amenities, future medical expenses and has not granted compensation towards transportation, conveyance and attendant charges. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal. 6. Learned counsel Sri. K. Poornabodha Rao, for respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly granted fair and just compensation to the claimant. Hence, no interference of this Court is called for in that regard. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. There is no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 04-02-2015 when the claimant was proceeding on the road he met with an accident, thus he sustained injuries on his head and right hand. Hence, the only point that arises for our consideration in the appeal is: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate or does it call for any interference?” 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and hence, it is required to be enhanced. 9. As per Ex.P3- wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained the following injuries: (i) Reddish abrasion of 3 cm x 3 cm on the right side of forehead with CT scan showing: a) Contusion of left fronto temporal contusion b) Difuse cebral edema c) Right hemiparesis (ii) Reddish abrasion of 6 cm x 4 cm on the right cheek. (iii) Reddish abrasion of 3 cm x 2 cm on the chin. (iv) Reddish contusion of 8 cm x 6 cm on the right shoulder with underlying fracture of clavicle (X ray no.9635) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 (v) Laceration of 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on the inner aspect of right elbow. (vi) Reddish abrasion of 4 cm x 3 cm on the right knee. (vii) Reddish abrasion of 5 cm x 3 cm on the right foot. 10. In order to establish this aspect, the claimant examined himself on oath as PW.1 and in support of his oral evidence, he examined the treated Doctor as PW.2. As per the opinion of the Doctor, the claimant suffered in all nine injuries and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 61%. But the Tribunal considered functional disability at 40%, which is fair and reasonable and no interference is called for in that regard, as Ex-P5 disability certificate discloses that the Doctor has assessed the disability in respect of upper limb and disability is not assessed in respect of head injury. But PW.2 Dr Ullas Shetty in his evidence has stated that due to head injury, the claimant suffered loss of muscular power and strength in his right hand and there is no sensation in the right hand. Thus he has suffered problem in nerves, which affected the upper - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 limb of the claimant. PW-2 Doctor is not an Orthopedic Surgeon. One Dr. Raja has assessed the physical disability and he has not been examined. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly assessed permanent physical disability of the claimant at 40%, which is reasonable one. 11. Insofar as the income of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru for the accident occurred in the year 2015. 12. Further, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects. Future prospectus, which represent potential future income, which is inherently uncertain and not a loss incurred at the time of accident or claim. Since future prospectus relate to potential future income, there is no loss until that future income is actually earned and not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 received due to accident. The age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 27 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided guidelines involving percentage-based calculations related to age. Future prospectus is not automatically granted and is subject to legal interpretations and precedent. 13. We have considered various factors including the nature of the work undertaken by the claimant, his potential for career advancement and economic conditions at the time of the accident. Specific percentage and multiplier used also are considered. Prospectus implies expectation of an opportunity, event, condition or development of definite interest or concern. In the instant case, since the functional disability of the claimant is assessed at 40% and there is every possibility that the injury sustained by the claimant may be cured in the due course of time, the claimant is not entitled for future prospectus. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 14. The Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,37,370/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,08,000/- towards loss of earning during laid up period, Rs.7,34,400/- towards loss of future earning capacity, which are fair and reasonable. Hence, no interference is called for in that regard. 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses which is on lower side. Hence, additional sum of Rs.50,000/- each is granted in respect of loss of amenities and future medical expenses. 16. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation in respect of conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Hence, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 17. Thus, the claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation as under: HEADS Rs. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000.00 Medical expenses 2,37,370.00 Loss of earning during laid up period 1,08,000.00 Loss of future earning capacity 7,34,400.00 Loss of amenities 1,00,000.00 Future Medical expenses 1,00,000.00 Conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges 20,000.00 TOTAL 13,99,770.00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 12,79,770.00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 1,20,000.00 18. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 03.11.2016 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 Tribunal, Kundapura in MVC No.688/2015 is modified to the extent stated herein above. (iii) The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,99,770/- as against Rs.12,79,770/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realisation. (iv) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (v) On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount in favour of the claimant on proper identification. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29347-DB MFA No. 1677 of 2017 (vi) The claimant is not entitled for any interest during the delayed period. (vii) Registry is directed to send the copy of the judgment alongwith Tribunal records to the Tribunal forthwith. (viii) Pending IAs if any, shall stand disposed of. (ix) No order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB/mn/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64