- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6456 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. M. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.40, R/O HEGIGENABELE VILLAGE, MADIVALA POST, MALUR TALUK-563130 KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. V. MUNINARAYAN S/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDENT AT NO.137/2, AMAR NIVAS, HORAMAVU OUTER RING ROAD, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT DODDABANASAWADI KALYANA NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 043. 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, 2ND FLOOR, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. VEERENDRA BABU FOR R1., ADVOCATE SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA., ADVCOATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1742/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 10.06.2016 passed by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-23) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.1742/2015. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 11.04.2015, at about 9.00 a.m., the claimant/appellant herein as well the claimant/petitioner in MVC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 No.1718/2015 by name Sri.Vasantha Kumar were proceeding on a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53-W- 6788. The said Vasantha Kumar was the rider and the appellant herein was the pillion rider. Near Jadigenahalli Bus stop, they met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-Z-2455, by its driver; as a result, the claimant sustained fracture of shaft right femur type 2 (open) and head injury with frontal bone fracture. He took treatment as an inpatient in Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru and he spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. He was working as a Packaging Supervisor at Rajola Enterprises and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is owner and Respondent No.2 is insurer of the offending car. Both the respondents have appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle as well as the driver of the car and he denied all the other averments stated in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.2 has denied the contents of the claim petition and his liability to pay compensation. It is also contended that there were two pillion riders, which is beyond the seating capacity of the vehicle and that was the cause for the accident and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. 7. The Tribunal clubbed MVC No.1718/ 2015 and NVC No.1742/2015 and common evidence was recorded. The claimants on their behalf examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked 38 documents as Exs.P1 to P38. Respondents have not led any evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 8. Tribunal after hearing both the parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car, by its driver. The Tribunal assessed age of the claimant as 33 years, his income as Rs.7,385/- per month and disability at 21% to whole body, applied multiplier as 16 and awarded following amount of compensation in MVC No.1742/2015: Sl. No Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.2,50,000/- 3. Loss of future earning Rs.2,97,800/- 4. Loss of earnings - - - 5. Food, conveyance and nourishment Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.5,83,300/- and directed respondent No.2 to pay the said compensation. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 10. I have heard the arguments and perused the Trial Court Records. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, especially under the head "pain and sufferings" and miscellaneous expenses, such as "food, attendant charges and conveyance charges, etc." The tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head "loss of income during laid up period" and "loss of amenities". Therefore, he prayed to enhance the same. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there are no reasons to interfere in the said findings and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. The fact of the accident and that claimant sustained injuries are not seriously disputed. Hence, no need to discuss the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 14. The only question that arises for determination is: "Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?” 15. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under some of the heads are on the lower side. 16. Learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the income of the claimant taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Tribunal ought to have taken income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month. The said submission in the present case is not acceptable. The claimant has produced the Salary Certificate that was considered by the Tribunal and accepted his income as Rs.7,385/- per month, which is noted in paragraph No.19 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, assessing the notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month not permissible. 17. As per the evidence of PW.1, he left the job after the accident. This is not seriously disputed. Looking at the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 said facts and also the injury sustained by the claimant, for at least 3 to 4 months he may not have been in a position to take any other job and thereby lost his earnings for a period of 3 to 4 months. Looking at the evidence of PW.3, claimant has lost some of the amenities available to a healthy person. But no compensation is awarded under the head "loss of amenities", which needs to be considered. For the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is entitled to following amount of compensation: Sl. No Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.2,50,000/- 3. Loss of future earning due to disability Rs.2,97,800/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period (7,385X4) Rs.29,540/- 5. Food, conveyance and nourishment Rs.25,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.6,77,340/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 18. The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.94,040/-, which is rounded off to Rs.95,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realisation. Accordingly, I answer the above question partly in the affirmative and pass following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 10.06.2016 passed by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-23) in MVC No.1742/2015, is modified; (a) Claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.95,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till realization. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27830 MFA No. 6456 of 2016 iii. Respondent No.2–Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. iv. The enhanced amount of compensation is marginal. Therefore, the entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification. v. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to Trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE DL