- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7074 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT. CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O LATE ELAPPA R/O BEHIND VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 092 PERMANENT ADDRESS: KADALAVENI VILLAGE GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAGHAVENDRA M MAJOR S/O KASTURI RANGAPPA R/A UPPARA COLONY GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 2. CHOLAMANDALA MS. GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., UNIT - IV, 9TH FLOOR (LEVEL-6) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLES. 59TH C CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH M BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 010 REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2025) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.07.05.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1820/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, (SCCH-15), 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 being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07th May 2022, passed by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru, (SCCH-15) (for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.1820/2019, seeking enhancement of compensation. Though this appeal is slated for orders, with the consent of both the parties it is taken up for final disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.01.2019, at about 9.00 a.m., the claimant met with an accident by involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-40-X-2848 at Kadalaveni Village in Gowribidanur Taluk. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture of right humerus. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation. 4. The fact of accident and injury sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 5. The only dispute in this case is that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation. The Tribunal has not taken income of the claimant properly and no amount of compensation was awarded under the heads of loss of income during laid up period and loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. Therefore, prayed to award the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposes the same and submits that the claimant was aged about 70 years at the time of accident and she herself was dependent upon the earnings of others. Therefore, the question of loss of income during laid up period or future earning capacity does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. According to the contention of the claimant- petitioner, she was aged about 59 years at the time of accident. She had produced her Aadhaar card and on that basis, her age was taken as 70 years. The wound - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 certificate produced at Ex.P.6 shows that her age was 59 years. In her cross-examination, it was suggested that she was aged about 70 years and was unable to do any kind of work, which she denied. Looking at these considerations, there is no material on record to show that she was incapable of doing any work. For the purpose of calculating compensation, the Tribunal may be justified in taking her age as 70 years on the basis of Aadhar records. However, solely on that basis, it is incorrect to hold that she was incapable to work and earn. 8. The claimant has contended that she was earning income of Rs.30,000/- p.m., from agriculture and milk vending. She was unable to prove the same before Tribunal. Hence, her notional income shall be assessed. Following the notional income chart prepared by the KSLSA her come is taken as Rs.14,000/- p.m. 9. According to evidence of PW.2, the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to the right upper - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 limb to an extent of 57.97% and he has assessed the whole body disability at 19.32%. The said assessment given by PW.2 is highly inflated. Even if we consider the Schedule I of the Employees' Compensation Act, the amputation of one hand below elbow may lead to permanent disability of 60% to 70%. Therefore, fracture which is united as per his evidence, cannot lead to a disability of 57.97% to the right upper limb. Considering the materials on record, her disability is taken as 10%. 10. As per the case of Sarla Verma And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another1, the multiplier applicable in this case is '5' and on that basis, the compensation is calculated under the heads of loss of income during laid up period and loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. 11. The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads namely pain and suffering, medical expenses and incidental expenses are proper and does not 1 2009 ACJ 1298 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 call for any interference. PW.1 and PW.2 have stated difficulties of the petitioner-claimant in doing day-to-day work. Considering the same, compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities shall be enhanced. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- Medical expenses 22,324/- Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000/- Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.14,000/- x 2) 28,000/- Loss of future earning capacity due to disability (Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 5 x 10%) 84,000/- Loss of amenities 30,000/- Total 2,34,324/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- 1,12,324/- 1,22,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 12. The claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. Undisputedly, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the said amount. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 07th May 2022, passed in MVC.No.1820/2019, by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru, (SCCH-15), stands modified; iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The claimant is aged about 70 years. Therefore, if part of the amount is deposited in the bank she may not enjoy the fruits of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51202 MFA No. 7074 of 2022 award. Hence, the entire enhanced amount shall be released in her favour on due identification. v) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4