- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5668 OF 2013 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5666 OF 2013 (MV-I), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5667 OF 2013 (MV) IN MFA No. 5668/2013 BETWEEN: SRI. SHEKAR S/O CHOWDAIAH @ BELUGANAN CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA BEGERU KUDLU GATE, ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE - AND ALSO AT UMMADAHALLI VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.BABU M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. C.V. MAHESH, S/O VEERABADRAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.452/1, IST MAIN , 5TH CROSS, PANCHASHEELANAGARA, MOODALAPALYA, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 BANGALORE -560 072. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO 4/3 AND 3/2, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH ) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.493/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XLI ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 5666/2013 BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATHA @ MANJE GOWDA S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENT OF C/O TANGANNA, CHIKKBEGURU, KUDLU GATE, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE AND ALSO AT, VALAGERE, SOMANAHALLI, CHENNARAYANA PATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. R RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BABU M .,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 AND: 1. SRI. C.V. MAHESH S/O VEERABADRAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.10/54, MUDALAPPA CROSS, DODDA MAVAHALLI, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 072. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.4/3 & 3/2, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 061. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 04.07.2016, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.494/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XLI ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 5667/2013 BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY @ KRISHNA @ MURTHY S/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT, 6TH MAIN ROAD, RASTRAKAVI KUVEMPUNAGARA, N.S. PALYA, BTM 2ND STAGE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 WARD NO 176, BANGALORE AND ALSO AT RESIDENT OF CHIKKABEGURU, VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BABU M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. C. V. MAHESH S/O VEERABADRAIAH MAJOR IN AGE, NO.10/54, MUDALAPPA CROSS, DODDAMAVAHALLI BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO 4/3, AND 3/2, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 061. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:4.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.492/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 41ST ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT MFA.Nos.5667/2013, 5668/2013 and 5666/2013 arises out of the judgment and award in MVC.Nos.492/2012, 493/2012, 494/2012 dated 04.03.2013 passed by the XIX Additional Small causes Judge, MACT and XLI ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-17), Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal). 2. All the three claim petitions arises out of the common judgment. The Tribunal recorded common evidence and disposed of the petition by a common judgment and award. The claimants dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded preferred these appeals. The appeals are taken up together for disposal. 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. It is the case of the claimants that, on 02.10.2011, at around 7.45 p.m, the claimants were going in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 a Tata sumo bearing registration No.KA-02-D-5064. The driver of the said vehicle was driving vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at Madavara Bridge, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru, it met with an accident resulting in injuries to the inmates of the said vehicle. All the three claimants sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. They took treatment by spending substantial amount and they have suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, claimants have prayed to award compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. In all the three petitions, respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claim petition and contended breach of terms and conditions of insurance by the owner of the vehicle. 6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues basing on the rival contentions of the parties. Claimants examined eight witnesses as PW-1 to PW8 and marked Exs.P1 to P29. The respondents have not led any evidence. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 on record claimed that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and in the said accident claimants sustained the injuries. 7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 8. The fact of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimants in the said accident are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. The only question that arises for consideration is: i. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. 9. I answer the above issue partly-in-affirmative for the following reasons: IN MVC.No.492/2004 10. The claimant is examined as PW-1. In his evidence, he has reiterated the contentions of the claim petition. The wound certificate of the claimant is produced at Ex.P7, which reveals that he sustained head injury, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 browny contusion over the left eye. CT brain revealed soft tissue of left parietal, left fracture with linear fracture of left frontal lower. He took treatment as in-patient from 02.10.2011 to 15.10.2011. The inpatient records are at Exs.P22 to 25. He contended the he has been suffering from permanent disability due to the said injuries. However, he has not examined doctor who had treated him to prove the disability, moreover, looking at the said injury, it does not reveal that he was suffering from any functional disability. He has produced the medical bills at Ex.P9. They were partly considered by the Tribunal and remaining parts were rejected due to receipts of the said bills, were not produced. 11. Considering the said facts, the Tribunal has awarded following amount of compensation: Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Pain and sufferings 20,000 2. Medical expenses 40,000 3. Loss of earnings 8,000 4. Conveyance, attendant and nourishing food 10,000 5. Discomfort, loss of amenities in life and future happiness 10,000 Total Rs.88,000/- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 12. Looking at the nature of the injuries, treatment taken and records produced by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side, which requires enhancement. The claimant contended that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has taken monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. which is on the lower side following the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, the notional income of the claimant is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. No amount of compensation is awarded towards loss of amenities though he has sustained linear fracture of left frontal bone, which needs to be considered. 13. The respondents have not led rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the medical receipts. The claimant has taken treatment and has undergone laboratory tests. Considering the same, he must have spent the said amount towards medical expenses, which has to be considered. 14. Therefore, following amount of compensation is awarded. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 40,000 2. Medical expenses 78,200 3. Loss of earning during laid up period(Rs.6,000x3) 18,000 4. Attendant charges, conveyance and special diet 25,000 5. Loss of amenities 50,000 Total Rs.2,11,200 Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.88,000 Enhanced amount Rs.1,23,200/- IN MVC.No.493/2012 in MFA.No.5668/2013 15. In this case, the claimant sustained injury to right hip with fracture intertrochanteric of the right femur bone and displaced fracture of linier and fracture of acetabulum. He took treatment in private hospital, admitting himself from 02.10.2011 to 03.10.2011. He has produced x-ray, medical report from Exs.19 to 22. He examined PW-7 who was not a treated doctor. On the basis of the medical test, he assessed the disability of the claimant at 34.9% to the lower limb and 17% to the whole body. In this case also the claimant contended that he was earning Rs.6,000/- by working as a garbage cleaner. Due to the above said fracture, he has been suffering from functional disability. He has produced the receipts for purchase of the medicine at Ex.P13, which - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 amounted to Rs.4,029/-. Considering the said facts, the Tribunal has awarded following amount of compensation: Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1. Pain and sufferings 40,000 2. Medical expenses 4,000 3. Loss of earnings 12,000 4. Conveyance, attendant and nourishing food 6,000 5. Discomfort, loss of amenities in life and future happiness 20,000 Total Rs.82,000/- 16. Being dissatisfied by the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 17. Looking at the materials placed on record, the said amount of compensation awarded is on the lower side. The income of the claimant taken is also on the lower side. Following the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, notional income is taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m. Looking at the injuries and nature of the work, it is evident the claimant has suffered permanent disability. Looking at the materials placed on record and evidence of PW-7, his permanent disability is assessed at 10% to the whole body. The age of the claimant is 44 years. As per the case of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 Sarla verma Vs. DTC1 and National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, the multiplier applicable in this case is ‘14’. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on lower side, which requires enhancement. 18. Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 60,000 2. Medical expenses 4,000 3. Loss of income during laid up period.(Rs.6,000x3) 18,000 4. Attendant charges, conveyance, special diet 25,000 5. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability(Rs.6,000x12x14x10%) 1,00,800 6. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 25,000 Total Rs.2,32,800/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.82,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.1,50,800/- MVC.No.494/2012 in MFA.No.5666/2013 19. In this case, the claimant sustained the following fractures: i. Fracture pelvis; 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 ii. Fracture acetabulum, iii. Fracture superior public ram-right and iv. Fracture inferior pubic rami-right. 20. According to the claimant, he was aged about 27 years. He was working as a tractor driver and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken income as Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. The claimant has produced medical bill of Rs.96,103/- at Ex.P18. However, the Tribunal has not considered it and has awarded only Rs.60,000/-, on the ground that the remaining bills are not relevant and they were hand written. He further contended that amount of compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, prayed to enhance the compensation. 21. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is partly acceptable. It is true that he has not produced any records to prove his income. Following the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authorities, the notional income is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 22. Looking at the nature of injuries and evidence of PW-8, the disability to the whole body is taken as 15%. There is no evidence to disbelieve the age of the claimant as 27 years, and the suitable multiplier applicable is ‘17’ as per the case of Sarla verma and Pranay Sethi (referred supra) It is true that some of the medical bills are computerised and some of them are hand written. Undisputedly, he had taken treatment in private hospital, Bengaluru as well as in Hemavathi Hosptial, Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan and also in Premier Sanjeevini Hospital. He was admitted as in- patient for nearly 20 days in different hospitals. Considering the said facts and circumstances, the medical bills produced by the claimant is believable. Considering the said facts, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which requires enhancement. 23. Accordingly the following amount of compensation is awarded: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 1,00,000 2. Medical expenses 96,000 3. Loss of income during laid up 36,000 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 period.(Rs.6,000x6) 4. Attendant charges, conveyance, special diet 30,000 5. Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability(Rs.6,000x12x17x15%) 1,83,600 6. Loss of amenities 50,000 7. Future medical expenses 40,000 Total Rs.5,35,600/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.2,11,000/- Enhanced amount Rs.3,24,600/- The claimants in each case are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of claim petition till its realization. Undisputedly, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. The claimants are not entitled for interest for future medical expenses. 24. For the aforesaid discussions, I answer point no.1 partly in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeals are allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 04.03.2013 passed by the XIX Additional Small - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25073 MFA No. 5668 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 5666 of 2013 MFA No. 5667 of 2013 Causes Judge, MACT & XLI ACMM in MVC.Nos.492, 493 and 494/2012 is modified. iii. The claimant in MVC.No.492/2012 is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,23,200/-. The claimant in MVC.No.493/2012 is entitled to enhancement of Rs.1,50,800/-. The claimant in MVC.No.494/2012 is entitled to enhancement of Rs.3,24,600/- The enhanced amounts carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. (Future medical expenses does not carry interest). iv. Remaining portion of the order is not disturbed. Send back the trial Court records to the Tribunal along with the copy of the judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21