- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37404 MFA No. 5563 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5563 OF 2024 (MV-I) BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O SANNAGANDA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NANDINATHAPURA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI POST, KANDALIKE HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 116 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.A. SABOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REKHA M A D/O BADRI R.S, MAJOR R/AT 201, SANGEETHA APARTMENT A BLOCK, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. 2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE L36/D, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37404 MFA No. 5563 of 2024 BENGALURU-NEELAGIRI ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001. 3. THE MANAGER, KALYANI MOTORS PVT. LTD., TRUE VALUE, SHRIRANGANAGARA, 100 FEET RING ROAD, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 039 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 AND R3 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1469/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37404 MFA No. 5563 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT At request of S.A.Saboor learned counsel for the appellant who appears through video conference and Sri. Ashok N Patil learned counsel for respondent No.2 who appears before this Court physically, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. Dissatisfied with the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru through orders in M.V.C. No.1469/2021 dated 13.06.2024, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement in compensation. 3. The only point that is projected and argued by learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of the disability of the appellant in respect of whole body. Learned counsel thus contends that the compensation granted is grossly low. 4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the appellant received the sum more than which he is entitled to and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37404 MFA No. 5563 of 2024 5. By all the evidence produced, the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained fracture of right tibia mid 1/3rd which is grievous in nature and that he underwent a surgery during the course of treatment. The evidence of PW-2 is that the disability in respect of the right lower limb is 32%. Considering the totality of evidence produced, the tribunal took the functionally disability in respect of whole body as 10%. Such assessment is based on sound reasoning and therefore needs no interference. 6. Taking the notional income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month, applying the appropriate multiplier '16', the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- as compensation under the head loss of future earnings. 7. By the evidence produced, the appellant established that he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 12 days. However, the tribunal granted a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period making an observation that the appellant would not have attended his normal pursuits atleast for a period of 6 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37404 MFA No. 5563 of 2024 months. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.45,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.35,000/- towards transportation, nourishment, Attendant and miscellaneous expenses, Rs.1,51,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs.6,79,000/- in total as compensation. 8. As rightly put forth by learned counsel for respondent No.2 the amount that is awarded as compensation thus by the tribunal is highly justifiable. This Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to interfere with any of the findings of the tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appeal lacks merits. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK