- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2191 OF 2020 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. SITHARAMA DATTATHREYA ACHARI S/O DATTATHREYA ACHARI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS CARPINTAIER, NO.10 SOUMYA NILAYA MAGADI MAIN ROAD NEAR SAINT YESH PUBLIC SCHOL KEMPEGOWDA NAGARA BYADARHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH VISHVANIDAM BENGALURU-560 091 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRI SHATNHI TOWERS 5TH FLOOR, NO.141 III MAIN, EAST TO NGEF LAYOUT KASTURI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 043 2. SRI. RADHAKRISHNA ACHARY S/O KALYANI ACHANRTHI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT SRI LAKSHMI NIVASA Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 ARATE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DIST-576 257 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DTD.17.08.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5265/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, SCCH-14, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant, being the petitioner in MVC.NO.5265/2018 on the file of Member MACT, XVI Additional Judge of Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated at 31.12.2019 passed in the said case has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief and relevant facts as set out in the petition leading up to this appeal are as under: It is stated that, on 10.08.2018 at about 09.30 p.m. petitioner being a pillion rider on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-20-Q-5171, ridden by a rider and owner, by name Radhakrishna Achari arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the petition and when they were proceeding from Mallathahalli to Kodigenahalli through Ullala road, near Upkar Layout, Venkateshwara temple, the rider of the motorbike by riding his motorbike in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and in order to avoid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 the crossing of the stray dog, all of a sudden, applied the brake, thereby respondent No.2 lost control and skidded and fell on the road, due to which the petitioner also fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was immediately shifted to Revathi Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, for further treatment, he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. In the said hospital, he underwent surgery for the injuries of right proximal tibia fracture with ORIF with plate and screws done on 13.08.2018 under SAB. It is stated that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, food, nourishment, and conveyance. The doctor also has advised him to undergo one more surgery. 3. It is stated that, the petitioner by profession was the skilled carpenter and having vast experience in expertise in the said field. He was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. Due to these accidental injuries, he is unable to attend his work and lost his earning capacity. This has made him to experience a great hardship and irreparable - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 loss. With regard to the said incident, the Jurisdictional Police have registered the crime in Crime No. 472/2018 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, and even filed charge sheet against respondent No. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under all the components. 4. Before the tribunal, respondent No. 1 appeared and resisted the petition by filing his statement. Despite service of notice on respondent No.2 has not appeared and therefore placed ex-parte. 5. Respondent No. 1 in his written statement has denied all the assertions made in the petition with regard to the nature of the accident, profession of the petitioner, his income as well as loss of earning capacity etc., It is contented that, a false complaint was filed in collusion with the police. The petitioner is not entitled for any compensation much less claimed in the petition. Thus, it is prayed by respondent No. 1 to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 6. Based upon the aforesaid rival pleadings of both the parties, the learned tribunal framed 3 relevant issues. Before the tribunal, to substantiate and prove the case of the petitioner, he himself entered the witness box as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and also examined one Dr. Chidanand K.J.C., as PW2. Respondent No.1 has not led any evidence. 7. After hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record by the petitioner, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by respondent No. 2 and held that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under: Sl.No . Heads Amount Rs. 1. Pain and sufferings 25,000.00 2. Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 7,000.00 3. Medical expenses 10,000.00 4. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability 1,07,100.00 5. Loss of amenities 25,000/- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 6. Loss of earnings during laid up period 17,000.00 7. Future Medical expenses 10,000.00 Total 2,01,100.00 8. Now, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said award of compensation, the appellant/petitioner is before this Court. The respondent No. 1 has not preferred any separate appeal challenging the findings of the tribunal. 9. As in this case, respondent No. 1 has not preferred any appeal, as the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike, owned by respondent No. 2 and ridden by him. the said finding of the tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle by respondent No. 2, the said accident has taken place, has attained finality. Therefore, in view of the attaining finality of the said finding, there need not be any further discussion on the 1aid aspect. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, when the said accident took place, the petitioner was aged 35 years. But in Para-20 of the impugned judgment, the learned tribunal has given a finding that, though the petitioner has mentioned his age as 34 years, but in the cross-examination, it is admitted that, he is born in the year 1982. Considering this admission, the tribunal has held that, he was aged 36 years as on the date of the accident. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Adhaar card so produced, which shows that he was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident. But in view of the admissions of PW1 in his cross-examination as rightly observed by the tribunal, it is held that, the petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of incident. 11. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that, he was a carpenter by profession. His monthly income from the said profession was Rs.40,000/- p.m. It is stated that, due to accidental injuries, now he is unable to attend any work and he has lost his earning capacity and there is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 loss of income. It has put him to great hardship and terrible loss. While assessing the income of the petitioner, the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion that, there is no document produced by the petitioner to show his actual income, except his interested self-serving evidence. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the aspects of the case, tribunal had come to the conclusion that, there shall be a notional income to be assessed in the absence of the documents. Thus, it has taken the income of the petitioner at Rs. 8,500/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said income of the petitioner so arrived at by the tribunal is on lower side. As the accident has taken place in the year 2018, though no documents were produced by the petitioner, as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the petitioner ought to have been assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month. 12. I find some force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. There are guidelines issued by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for assessing the income, where there is no proof of income. In this case also, the petitioner except his self-serving evidence, there is no evidence placed on record to show his actual income at Rs.40,000/- p.m. In the absence of the same, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that, the income of the petitioner has to be assessed at Rs.12,500/- per month as per the guideline supra. To this extent the intervention is very much required into the impugned judgment. 13. So far as disability is concerned, as per the evidence of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered a disability to the extent of 15% to the whole body. But the tribunal has assessed the same at 7%. For reducing the disability to the extent of 7%, no proper reasons are assigned by tribunal. So therefore, in view of the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, that he has suffered the injuries like "right proximal tibia fracture with ORIF with plate and other injuries, so also there is a deformity - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 in the leg", it must definitely come in the way of his day- to-day activities as a carpenter. In view of the same, if the disability is increased to 10% from 7% as assessed by the tribunal, it would meet the ends of justice. 14. As his income is arrived at Rs.12,500/- per month, as the petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of accident, the proper multiplier that is, applicable as per the judgment in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, is '15'. As the disability is assessed at 10% now, then the loss of future income due to disability would comes to Rs.2,25,000/- (12,500 x 10/100 x 15 x 12). Thus, the petitioner is held entitle for compensation towards the loss of future income due to disability at Rs.2,25,000/-. 15. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. This appears to be on the lower side. In view of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and his age etc., it requires some - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 enhancement. So if it is increased to Rs.30,000/-, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. 16. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.7,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner took the treatment as an inpatient for 14 days in the hospital. So also he has taken treatment as an outpatient also. During this treatment period, he must have spent substantial money towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Therefore, this requires enhancement, in view of the treatment taken by the petitioner for 14 days period. At least he must have taken a rest for 3 months. That means there shall be some increase in the compensation award towards nourishment, convenience and attendant charges. If it is increased to Rs.15,000/-, it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, there shall be enhancement under - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 the head nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges at Rs.15,000/-. 17. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. As the petitioner has taken the treatment in the Government Hospital, and whatever the award towards medical expenses is arrived by the tribunal, it requires no interference. 18. With all frustrations, inconvenience and discomfort, the petitioner has to survive. He is a carpenter by profession as per his say. There is loss of amenities to be enjoyed in his life. The tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the loss of amenities and as stated supra with all frustrations, inconvenience and discomfort, he has to survive. Therefore, if the amount towards loss of amenities is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-, it would meet the ends of justice. 19. The learned tribunal has awarded Rs.17,000/- towards loss of earning capacity during the laid up period. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 These injuries must have idled the petitioner at least for a period of 3 months. The compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. As the income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.12,500/-, the income during laid up period would be Rs.37,500/- (12,500 x 3). 20. The tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses and it requires no interference. 21. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part by holding that, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation as under: Sl.No . Heads Amount Rs. 1. Loss of future income due to disability 2,25,000.00 2. Pain and suffering 30,000.00 3. Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 15,000.00 4. Medical expenses 10,000.00 5. Loss of amenities 30,000.00 6. Loss of income during laid up period 37,500.00 7. Future medical expenses 10,000.00 Total 3,57,500.00 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 22. Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,56,400/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the tribunal together with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. In this case, the insurance company has not disputed the insurance policy and its validity on the date of accident. 23. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The appellant/petitioner is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,57,500/-, as against Rs.2,01,100/- awarded by the tribunal, thereby there is enhancement of Rs.1,56,400/- together interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization. (iii) The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No.5265/2018 dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Member, MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29479 MFA No. 2191 of 2020 Causes, Bengaluru, is hereby modified to the above extent. (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. However, under law of indemnity, respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of this judgment. (v) There shall be modified award accordingly. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21